G.R. No. 127905 ; August 30, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO REMUDO Y SIRAY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the rape of Marissa Remudo, a minor, by her own brother, accused-appellant Danilo Remudo. The information alleged that on or about June 3, 1996, in Quezon City, Danilo, by means of force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of his 13-year-old sister without her consent. During trial, Marissa testified that Danilo forcibly pulled her, made her lie down, removed her underwear, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance. She reported the incident to her teacher a month later, leading to a medical examination which confirmed she was no longer a virgin. The defense consisted solely of Danilo’s denial and alibi, claiming he was at work as a construction worker during the alleged incident and had a good relationship with his sister.
The Regional Trial Court found Danilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. The court gave full credence to Marissa’s candid and consistent testimony, noting no ill motive for a sister to falsely accuse her own brother of such a grave crime. It appreciated the special qualifying circumstances of minority (the victim being under 18) and relationship (the offender being a brother of the victim), which under the law warranted the imposition of the death penalty. Danilo was sentenced to death and ordered to pay damages.

ISSUE

The core issue for automatic review is whether the trial court erred in convicting Danilo Remudo of rape and imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the penalty of death. On the first assigned error regarding ineffective counsel, the Court found it devoid of merit. The record showed Danilo was represented by counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office during trial, and later by an appointed de oficio counsel for the appeal, who diligently filed the necessary pleadings. There was no showing that his counsel’s performance fell below the standard of competent representation.
On the second error, the Court upheld the finding that force and intimidation attended the commission of rape, negating any claim of consensual act. The Court reiterated the doctrine that in rape cases, the credibility of the victim is paramount. Marissa’s testimony was clear, convincing, and consistent. The Court found her delay in reporting the crime understandable due to her fear of her brother, and it did not impair her credibility. Her young age and the trauma of being violated by a family member in her own home were duly considered. The defense of denial and alibi, unsupported by strong evidence, could not prevail over Marissa’s positive identification. The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority were both proven and duly alleged in the information. Consequently, the imposition of the death penalty was legally mandated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 . The Court modified the damages, increasing the civil indemnity to P75,000 and adjusting exemplary damages to P25,000.