G.R. No. 127177 . February 25, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO AMBRAY y LUTERIO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Romeo Ambray was charged with the statutory rape of his common-law wife’s daughter, eleven-year-old Melanie Hernandez. The prosecution alleged that on March 13, 1996, in Pasig City, Ambray, by means of force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of Melanie against her will. Melanie testified that she was awakened when Ambray carried her to a bed, covered her mouth, and sexually assaulted her. She later reported the incident to her aunt, leading to Ambray’s arrest. Medical examination revealed healed lacerations and recent injuries consistent with sexual abuse. Melanie further testified that Ambray had been raping her since she was six years old.
The defense presented a denial and alibi. Ambray claimed he was sleeping beside his own children and could not have moved without waking them. He alleged that Melanie’s aunt fabricated the charge to pressure Melanie’s mother to end their relationship. Defense witnesses, including the victim’s mother, suggested that Melanie’s half-brother, Robin, was the actual perpetrator of prior molestation. The trial court convicted Ambray of rape and imposed the death penalty, citing the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender as qualifying circumstances.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted Ambray of qualified rape punishable by death, considering the sufficiency of the evidence and the proper appreciation of qualifying circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found Melanie’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. The medical findings, while indicating prior sexual experience, corroborated her account of recent abuse, as the physician testified that redness and congestion could indicate recent injury. The defense of denial and imputation of motive to the aunt were insufficient to overcome the positive identification and credible narrative of the victim.
However, the Court reduced the penalty because the information failed to properly allege the qualifying circumstances that would warrant the death penalty. While the victim was a minor and the offender was a common-law spouse of her mother, the information did not specifically allege that Ambray was a “stepfather” or that he was “living with the victim” as required by law at the time. Qualifying circumstances must be pleaded with specificity to inform the accused of the precise charges against him. Due to this deficiency, the crime could only be punished as simple statutory rape, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was maintained at P50,000, and an additional P50,000 in moral damages was awarded. The award of exemplary damages was deleted for lack of basis.