GR 123599; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123599 December 13, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGAPITO FLORES y VELISTA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Agapito Flores was convicted of rape and sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court for raping his 13-year-old daughter, Ma. Cristina Flores, on November 8, 1994. The prosecution’s evidence established that after a quarrel with his common-law wife Rosario, who left the house, Flores ordered his other children outside, brought Ma. Cristina into a bedroom, pointed a knife at her neck, forced her to undress, and had carnal knowledge of her. The medico-legal examination confirmed healed hymenal lacerations. Ma. Cristina testified this was not the first instance of rape by her father.
The defense presented a denial and frame-up theory. Flores claimed the rape charge was fabricated by Rosario out of jealousy and anger from their marital disputes. He asserted that the knife allegedly used was already in police custody from a prior incident. He also highlighted alleged inconsistencies between Ma. Cristina’s court testimony and her sworn statement regarding details of the act and her subsequent reporting of it.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony to be minor and inconsequential, pertaining to collateral details that did not undermine the core fact of sexual violation. The Court reiterated the doctrine that testimonial discrepancies on minor matters can strengthen credibility by negating rehearsal. The victim’s positive, categorical, and consistent identification of her father as the rapist, corroborated by medical findings, prevailed over the bare denial and implausible frame-up motive presented by the defense.
However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The information charged simple rape but did not allege any of the qualifying circumstances under Republic Act No. 7659 that would warrant the death penalty, such as the victim’s minority or relationship. Convicting an accused of qualified rape and imposing death when the information only alleges simple rape violates the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Thus, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court awarded civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim.