G.R. No. 122764 September 24, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO PEREZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An information was filed against accused-appellant Ernesto Perez for the rape of his 13-year-old stepdaughter, Maribel Perez, on February 21, 1994, in Barangay Ilo, Sta. Margarita, Samar. Appellant brought Maribel from their Manila home to Samar. On the night in question, while staying in the house of spouses Raul and Nida Nieva, appellant entered the bedroom where Maribel was sleeping, removed her panties, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will and through force and intimidation, covering her mouth and threatening to box her. He later masturbated and ejaculated on her. The next day, Maribel reported the incident to Nida Nieva, the barangay captain, and the police. A medical examination revealed a fresh hymenal laceration. Appellant denied the charge, claiming he slept on the terrace and that Maribel was beside him when he woke up. The defense also presented a detention prisoner who claimed to have overheard Maribel denying the rape to the police. The trial court conducted an ocular inspection of the crime scene. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of rape and, due to the qualifying circumstances of the victim being under eighteen and the offender being the stepfather, sentenced him to death and ordered him to pay moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Ernesto Perez of rape based on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony and the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The Court found the testimony of complainant Maribel Perez credible, straightforward, and consistent, bearing the earmarks of truth. Her prompt reporting of the crime and submission to a physical examination bolstered her credibility. The medical evidence corroborated her account. The Court rejected appellant’s arguments regarding the improbability of the rape given the location and house conditions as unconvincing. The Court held that the qualifying circumstances of minority (victim under 18) and relationship (stepfather-stepdaughter) were duly proven. However, applying the ruling in People vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, as the information failed to allege the specific age of the victim. The Court also modified the award of P50,000.00, designating it as actual or compensatory damages instead of moral damages.