GR 131472; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131472 ; March 28, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO TIPAY Y NUITE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The case involves the rape of Susan Pelaez, who was 15 years old and diagnosed with mild mental retardation, by her stepfather, accused-appellant Romeo Tipay. The incidents occurred in 1995 in Camarines Sur. Susan testified that Tipay, using a knife, force, and threats to kill her family, raped her on multiple occasions when they were alone. Intimidated, she remained silent until her pregnancy was discovered in October 1995, after which she revealed the assaults to her grandmother, Flora Deguiño. A medical examination confirmed a healed hymenal laceration and pregnancy. Susan later gave birth to a child. The defense, denying the charges, claimed the complaint was fabricated by Flora due to her opposition to Tipay’s live-in relationship with Susan’s mother and alleged that Susan’s uncle was the actual perpetrator.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Tipay of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, and imposed the death penalty, citing the qualifying circumstance of the victim being under eighteen and the offender being a stepfather. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review due to the death penalty imposed.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the qualifying circumstance of the victim’s minority with the requisite certainty to justify the imposition of the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Susan’s credible testimony, which was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and the birth of a child. The defense of denial and frame-up was deemed weak and unsubstantiated. However, the Court reduced the penalty because the prosecution failed to conclusively prove Susan’s age at the time of the rape. While her minority was alleged in the information and testified to, the prosecution did not present independent documentary evidence, such as a birth certificate, to irrefutably establish that she was under eighteen. The Court ruled that for the death penalty to be applied under R.A. 7659, the victim’s minority must be proven with certainty, especially when the age is around the crucial years of fifteen to seventeen. This technical flaw precluded the imposition of the supreme penalty. The Court sustained the award of P50,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as civil indemnity but reduced the exemplary damages from P50,000 to P25,000.