G.R. No. 132047 ; December 14, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE PECAYO SR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Felipe Pecayo Sr., was charged with two counts of rape against his daughter, Kristina Pecayo, a 14-year-old minor. The identically worded Informations alleged that in December 1996 and January 1996, through force and intimidation, he had sexual intercourse with his daughter against her will. During trial, Kristina testified that her father entered her room early in the morning on both occasions, removed their clothing, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. She stated she did not resist due to fear, as her father was drunk and carried a knife, and he had threatened to kill the family. Medical examination revealed healed hymenal lacerations consistent with penetration.
The defense presented only the accused-appellant, who denied the charges and claimed his daughter filed the case out of resentment because he scolded and spanked her for coming home late. The Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, found the testimony of the victim credible, straightforward, and delivered with anguished sincerity. It held that the father’s moral ascendancy substituted for violence and intimidation. Consequently, the trial court convicted Pecayo Sr. of two counts of rape and imposed the death penalty for each count, prompting this automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty for the two counts of incestuous rape.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court reiterated the settled rule that for the death penalty to be imposed in incestuous rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 , the twin qualifying circumstances of minority (that the victim is below 18 years of age) and relationship (that the offender is a parent of the victim) must be both alleged in the information and proven beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, while the Informations specifically alleged that the victim was a “14 year old minor girl” and “his daughter,” and these facts were proven during trial, the penalty imposed must still be rectified due to an error in the date of the commission of one offense.
The Court noted a critical discrepancy: one Information alleged the rape occurred “in or about the month of December 1996,” but the victim’s testimony and the trial court’s findings referenced a rape in January 1996. The Information for the January incident was thus defective for alleging a different month. Consequently, for that count, the qualifying circumstance of the victim’s age was not properly alleged in relation to the correct date, warranting the imposition of reclusion perpetua instead of death. For the December 1996 rape, where the allegation and proof were congruent, the death penalty was properly imposable. However, in line with prevailing policy at the time and the absence of any aggravating circumstance, the Supreme Court reduced both penalties to reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the civil indemnity and awarded moral and exemplary damages.