G.R. Nos. 130409-10 November 27, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSUE B. DUMLAO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Josue B. Dumlao was charged with two counts of rape for sexually assaulting his nieces, Benita and Jennifer Matutino. The complaints alleged the crimes occurred between 1991 and May 1996 in Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija. The victims, who were minors residing with their maternal grandmother, testified that in May 1996, while their grandmother was hospitalized, Dumlao separately raped them inside the house. Jennifer, then 11 years old, was awakened at night, brought downstairs, and forcibly assaulted. Benita was similarly attacked while sleeping upstairs. Both victims identified their uncle, whom they called “Tito Judy,” as the perpetrator, recognizing him by the light in the room. They initially remained silent due to death threats but eventually disclosed the assaults to their father.
Medical examinations confirmed the victims had sustained injuries consistent with sexual intercourse. The defense presented alibi and denial, claiming the charges were fabricated due to a family grudge over land. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dumlao of two counts of rape and imposed the death penalty, citing the qualifying circumstance of relationship where the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a relative within the third civil degree. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed but the penalty is modified. The Supreme Court found the testimonies of the victims credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the credibility of the complainant is paramount, and the victims’ straightforward narrations, coupled with their young age, bore the hallmarks of truth. The defense of alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification. The Court also upheld the finding of the qualifying circumstance of relationship, as it was sufficiently alleged in the informations and proven during trial—the accused is the brother of the victims’ mother, a relative within the third civil degree.
However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each count. While relationship was properly established as a qualifying circumstance warranting the death penalty under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the requisite minority of the victims was not duly proven. Although the victims testified to being minors, their exact ages were not conclusively established by certified copies of their birth certificates presented in evidence. For the imposition of the death penalty, both minority and relationship must be alleged and proved with equal certainty. The failure to conclusively prove minority warrants the reduction of the penalty. The Court affirmed the award of civil indemnity and moral damages to each victim.