G.R. No. 121212 January 20, 1999.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTEMIO CALAYCA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

A sworn complaint for rape was filed by Neddy Calayca against her father, appellant Artemio Calayca. The Information alleged that on or about January 29, 1994, in Barangay Solo, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, the accused, by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge with his daughter, Neddy Calayca, against her will and consent. When arraigned, the appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence consisted mainly of the testimony of the 16-year-old complainant, Neddy Calayca. She testified that at around 1:00 a.m. on January 29, 1994, while she was asleep, her father, naked and armed with a bolo, went on top of her, forcibly undressed her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made push and pull motions. She resisted by kicking and boxing him and told him, “I wish you would die. You are a father without good morals.” He threatened to kill her with a knife if she did not agree. She was 15 years old at the time. She did not immediately file a case due to his threats. She reported the incident to relatives and later, with her eldest sister Betty Lani, fled to Bukidnon. The appellant located and harassed them there, leading to his arrest by police. Neddy then gave her sworn statement on the rape. Betty Lani Calayca testified that she was informed Neddy was being sexually abused by their father. When she came home, the appellant also tried to touch her. Dr. Angelita A. Enopia conducted a pelvic examination on Neddy and found healed hymenal lacerations and thickening indicative of frequent sexual intercourse. The appellant, testifying for the defense, did not deny the rape accusation. He only testified that he was a widower with six children, that Neddy was nine when her mother died, and that his daughters Betty Lani and Neddy left his house on August 19, 1993, taking his savings of P5,000. He found them in Bukidnon and slapped them when they did not explain why they took the money. The defense presented no other witnesses or evidence. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant of rape and sentenced him to death, considering that the offended party was below 18 and the accused was her parent. The case is under automatic review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the private complainant despite alleged inconsistencies.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape despite the alleged insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found no merit in the appellant’s claims. The alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony—regarding the frequency of the rape and whether the weapon used was a bolo or a knife—were minor and did not detract from her credibility. The Court has ruled that an errorless recollection of a harrowing incident like rape cannot be expected, and minor errors tend to buttress credibility as they indicate the testimony was not contrived. The complainant’s testimony was clear and consistent on the material point that she was raped by her father on January 29, 1994. Her positive identification, coupled with the medical findings of healed hymenal lacerations, established the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant’s failure to deny the rape accusation and his admission of paternity further strengthened the prosecution’s case. However, the Court modified the penalty. The crime was committed on January 29, 1994, when Republic Act No. 7659 , which re-imposed the death penalty, had already taken effect on December 31, 1993. The qualifying circumstances under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 , were present: the victim was under 18 years of age and the offender was her parent. Therefore, the crime was qualified rape punishable by death. Nevertheless, the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua because the Information failed to allege with specificity the qualifying circumstances of the victim’s age and her relationship to the offender. While these circumstances were mentioned in the body of the Information, they were not specifically alleged in a manner that would inform the accused with certainty that he was being charged with a capital offense. The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him requires that the qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged. The Court also affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the victim.