G.R. No. 126019 ; March 1, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO CALDONA y LLAMAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mario Caldona was charged with Qualified Rape for allegedly raping his daughter, Maria Lolita Caldona, on August 13, 1995, in Kalookan City. The prosecution presented Lolita’s testimony that she and her sister went to ask money from their father, who later directed her to a specific address. There, he arrived, undressed her, and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. She did not immediately report the incident but later confided in a doctor during a consultation in November 1995, after experiencing hallucinations and hearing her father’s threatening voice. She filed a formal complaint with the NBI in December. The medical examination revealed an intact but distensible hymen, consistent with penetration. The trial court convicted Caldona of rape and imposed the death penalty.
The defense presented a denial and alibi. Caldona claimed he was at home with his live-in partner during the morning of the incident, gave his family money for an outing, and later worked at his shop. He alleged the rape charge was fabricated by in-laws as reprisal for his interference in a family quarrel over inheritance. On automatic review, the accused-appellant argued that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were incredible and inconsistent, and that the information failed to allege the victim’s age as under eighteen, a necessary qualifying circumstance for the death penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused and in imposing the death penalty despite the alleged deficiencies in the information regarding the victim’s age.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the victim credible and consistent. The delay in reporting the rape was sufficiently explained by her fear, psychological trauma, and the moral ascendancy of her father, which is common in incestuous rape cases. Her subsequent mental distress, requiring consultation and confinement, corroborated her account. The medical findings, while not showing fresh injuries, were consistent with sexual intercourse given her sexual history. The defense of denial and alibi, uncorroborated and weak against the positive identification by the victim, deserved no weight.
On the penalty, the Court ruled that the information failed to allege the qualifying circumstance that the victim was under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape. While the victim’s minority was proven during trial, the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation requires that qualifying circumstances for the imposition of the death penalty must be expressly and specifically alleged in the information. This omission precluded the imposition of the death penalty. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.