GR 126575; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126575 December 11, 1998
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OMAR MEDINA y LUMBERIO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Omar Medina, the common-law husband of Lolita Flores, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque for four counts of rape committed against his 13-year-old stepdaughter, Lodalyn Flores, in July, August, September, and October of 1995. The prosecution evidence established that Medina, through force, intimidation, and the use of a knife, sexually assaulted Lodalyn on these occasions, threatening to kill her and her mother if she reported the incidents. The crimes were revealed in November 1995 after a family quarrel, leading to a medical examination which confirmed an old healed hymenal laceration. Medina denied the accusations, claiming he was busy with chores and that Lodalyn fabricated the charges because he scolded her for having suitors.
ISSUE
The core issue for automatic review was whether the trial court correctly convicted Medina of four counts of rape and imposed the death penalty for each count.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Lodalyn, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent, even under rigorous cross-examination. Her detailed account of the successive assaults, coupled with the medico-legal findings, constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of denial and alleged ill motive was deemed weak and insufficient to overcome the positive identification and narrative of the victim. However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each count. The informations alleged the crime was committed “by means of force and intimidation” and that the victim was a minor. The Court held that for the death penalty to apply under Republic Act No. 7659, the qualifying circumstance of the victim being under eighteen and the offender being a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or guardian must be specifically alleged in the information. Here, while the victim’s minority was stated, the specific relationship of stepfather (or one exercising moral ascendancy) was not expressly alleged. This failure constituted a deficiency in the pleading, barring the imposition of the capital punishment. The civil indemnity and damages awarded by the trial court were affirmed.