G.R. Nos. 132239-40; December 4, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO NAVIDA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Francisco Navida, was charged with two counts of rape committed against his daughter, Glenda V. Navida, on December 24 and 25, 1994, in Quezon City. The informations alleged that the accused, by means of force and intimidation and at knife point, had carnal knowledge of the victim against her will. The victim testified that on the evening of December 24, 1994, while she and her father were on their way to a relative’s house, he led her to a grassy area, threatened her with a knife, and forced her to have sexual intercourse. He repeated the act in the same location on the following night, again under threat. The victim, out of fear due to her father’s violent temperament and explicit threats to kill her and her brother if she reported the assaults, only revealed the incidents after a subsequent attack in January 1996, where the accused stabbed her.
The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was in Pangasinan during the alleged dates. The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and imposed the death penalty for each count, citing the qualifying circumstance of relationship where the victim is a daughter under eighteen years of age. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Glenda Navida, to be credible, categorical, and consistent. She provided a detailed and coherent account of the two separate sexual assaults, including the specific threats and use of a knife, which established the essential elements of force, intimidation, and lack of consent required for rape. Her delay in reporting the incidents was sufficiently explained by her well-grounded fear of her father, who was her own ascendant and had threatened her life. The defense of denial and alibi, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over her positive identification.
Regarding the penalty, the Court agreed that the crimes were qualified by the circumstance of relationship under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 , the victim being the daughter of the accused and under eighteen years old at the time of the rapes. However, the Court held that the imposition of the death penalty was erroneous because the informations failed to allege with specificity the victim’s minority. While the complaints stated she was “15 years of age, a minor,” they did not expressly allege that she was under eighteen, which is a crucial element for qualifying the crime to warrant the death penalty under the law at the time. Consequently, the qualifying circumstance of minority could not be appreciated. The penalty was thus reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court affirmed the award of civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim.