GR 104942 43; (November, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104942 -43 November 25, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Napoleon Subingsubing, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Napoleon Subingsubing was charged with three counts of rape in separate informations (Criminal Case Nos. 772, 773, and 774) for allegedly having carnal knowledge of his niece, Mary Jane S. Espilan, on November 25, 28, and 30, 1989, in Barangay Fiangtin, Barlig, Mountain Province, through force, threat, and intimidation. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. After a joint trial, the trial court convicted him of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 772 and 774, acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 773 due to inadequate testimony. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who stated that the accused, her uncle, raped her at gunpoint and through physical violence on November 25 and 28, 1989, and threatened to kill her if she reported it. She later discovered she was pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy. The defense interposed consent, with the accused testifying that the sexual intercourse on November 25 was consensual and denying the incidents on November 28 and 30. Defense witnesses, including the complainant’s grandmother, testified to the happy relationship between the accused and complainant after November 1989.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Nos. 772 and 774.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. In G.R. No. 104942 (Criminal Case No. 772), the accused was ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony regarding her state of dress after the alleged incident. In G.R. No. 104943 (Criminal Case No. 774), the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove force or intimidation for rape but established the elements of qualified seduction under Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused, as a “domestic” (an uncle living in the same house) who abused his moral ascendancy over the complainant, a presumed virgin, was convicted of QUALIFIED SEDUCTION. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years, eleven months, and ten days of prision correccional as maximum, ordered to indemnify the complainant P30,000.00, and to support the child. The records were ordered remanded to determine the amount of support.