G.R. No. 124329 . December 14, 1998.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR MASALIHIT y MONDIDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Cesar Masalihit, was charged with the rape of his fourteen-year-old daughter, Analyn Masalihit, allegedly committed in the early morning of January 1, 1994, in Silang, Cavite. The prosecution’s evidence consisted of Analyn’s testimony that she was awakened by the sensation of her private parts being wiped and the weight of someone on top of her, whom she identified as her father. She noticed her panty had been lowered and later felt pain. A medical examination months later revealed healed hymenal lacerations. The defense presented a denial and alibi. The Regional Trial Court convicted Masalihit of rape, imposing the death penalty due to the aggravating circumstance of relationship.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Vitug argued that the conviction should be affirmed. He contended that the requirements for conviction—moral certainty that a crime was committed and that the accused was the perpetrator—were sufficiently met. The dissent emphasized that the complainant’s testimony before the trial court and the police investigation report duly established the fact of rape and the identity of the accused. While acknowledging that certain questions and answers from the preliminary investigation were rightly discarded for not being referred to in the complainant’s testimony, Justice Vitug maintained that the evidence on hand remained sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He viewed the trial court’s assessment of the complainant’s credibility as deserving respect. Furthermore, the dissent expressed a separate constitutional concern regarding the imposition of the death penalty, urging Congress to re-examine its propriety and to ensure that the “heinous” nature of a crime warranting such penalty is spelled out with great clarity in the law. However, on the substantive issue of the appellant’s guilt, Justice Vitug voted to affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction, dissenting from the majority’s decision to acquit.