GR 123160; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123160 March 25, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS BATION y ALAMAG, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Carlos Bation, was charged with the rape of his 13-year-old daughter, Rosemarie Bation. The prosecution alleged that on the evening of August 18, 1994, in Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, Carlos lured Rosemarie under the pretext of running an errand. While walking home, he forcibly brought her to a banana hill, threatened to kill her, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge against her will. Rosemarie reported the incident to her mother the following day, leading to the filing of a complaint. Medical examination confirmed recent sexual intercourse.
Carlos Bation pleaded not guilty and presented an alibi, claiming he was in a different location, approximately 12 kilometers away, sleeping at the time of the alleged crime. He denied the accusation, asserting his love for his daughter and suggesting his wife’s jealousy as a motive for the charge. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 , and imposed the death penalty due to the qualifying circumstances of the victim’s minority (below 18) and her relationship to the offender as his daughter.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape and imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Rosemarie, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. It held that her account of the forcible sexual assault, including the threat to kill and the details of the act, constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the victim’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The defense of alibi was rejected as inherently weak and unsubstantiated by corroborative evidence, especially in light of the positive identification by the victim. The claim of ill motive on the part of the wife was deemed insufficient to overturn the clear and convincing evidence of the prosecution.
Regarding the penalty, the Court ruled that the concurrence of the two circumstances mandated by law—the victim was under eighteen years of age and the offender is the parent of the victim—justified the imposition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659 . The Court modified the civil liabilities, increasing the indemnity to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) and awarding moral damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) without need of further proof, recognizing the profound trauma inflicted. The decision was affirmed with these modifications.