G.R. No. 136737 . May 23, 2001.
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ben Libo-on, accused-appellant.

FACTS

This is an automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting accused-appellant Ben Libo-on of the rape of his fourteen-year-old niece, Analyn Caballes, and imposing the death penalty. An Information dated November 4, 1997, charged him with rape by force and intimidation under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7659 and Republic Act 8353. Before arraignment, the prosecution submitted an affidavit of desistance purportedly signed by the complainant and her mother, Erlinda Caballes. The court held a clarificatory hearing. The mother affirmed the voluntariness of the desistance, citing pity for the accused’s children, and denied receiving payment. The father, Ananias Caballes, stated he did not agree to the settlement and wanted to continue the prosecution. The court declared the affidavit not binding and gave custody of the complainant to the “Bahay Dangupan.” The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence established that on November 2, 1997, the complainant was sent to buy beer from a store. While on her way, the accused-appellant, her uncle, grabbed her, brought her to an abandoned house, and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. She reported the incident to her father, and they went to the police and the Davao Medical Center for examination. Dr. Marivic Mosqueda found old, healed hymenal lacerations and the presence of spermatozoa in her vagina. The defense presented accused-appellant, who denied the rape and claimed the charge was fabricated because he refused an additional loan to the complainant’s mother after lending her P5,000. He presented an alibi, stating he was at a friend’s house drinking until 10:00 p.m. on the night in question.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the complainant credible, straightforward, and consistent. The medical findings, particularly the presence of spermatozoa, corroborated her claim of recent sexual intercourse. The defense of denial and alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The affidavit of desistance, being retracted and not binding on the court, did not affect the case’s merits. The relationship of uncle and niece was sufficiently proven, constituting the qualifying circumstance for statutory rape under Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 . However, the Court found that the Information failed to allege with specificity the victim’s age, a necessary element for imposing the death penalty. While the birth certificate was presented during trial, the Information only described her as “a 14 year old minor.” Citing jurisprudence, the Court held that for the death penalty to be imposed, the precise age must be stated in the Information. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The accused-appellant was also ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.