G.R. Nos. 127750-52; November 20, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISANTO DIGMA Y UBAY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Crisanto Digma was convicted of three counts of rape against his 14-year-old sister-in-law, Adora Balce, and sentenced to death for each count. The incidents occurred on March 1, October 24, and November 27, 1994. In the first instance, Adora was assaulted while sleeping beside her sister (Digma’s wife) and their children in their home. Digma threatened to kill her family if she reported it. The second rape occurred when he lured her to an empty house under false pretenses. The third happened during a town fiesta, where he again threatened her before assaulting her. Adora eventually disclosed the rapes to her sister, leading to a medical examination which revealed old hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse.
The defense presented a sweetheart theory, claiming Adora was his lover and that their sexual encounters were consensual. He alleged that the first act even occurred with his wife present in the same room. The trial court rejected this defense, finding Adora’s testimony credible and consistent, and convicted Digma. The case was automatically elevated to the Supreme Court for review of the death penalties.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties and damages. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Adora’s credibility. Her detailed, candid, and consistent narration of the terrifying assaults, coupled with her plausible explanation for the delayed reporting—intense fear due to Digma’s repeated death threats against her family—strengthened her testimony. The medical findings of old hymenal lacerations corroborated her claim of prior sexual intercourse. In contrast, the accused’s sweetheart defense was deemed inherently incredible and a common ploy in rape cases. The assertion of a consensual act with his wife sleeping nearby was found to be contrary to human experience and ordinary behavior.
However, the Court reduced the penalty. While the rape of a relative by affinity like a sister-in-law is a qualifying circumstance warranting the death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659, this circumstance must be alleged with precision in the information. The informations in this case failed to specifically allege that the victim was the accused’s sister-in-law. This fatal omission meant the qualifying circumstance was not properly charged, and thus could not be appreciated to justify the death penalty. Consequently, the penalty for each count was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 for each count, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The awards for moral and exemplary damages were affirmed.