G.R. No. 133146 ; March 28, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL CULA y BANDILLA and JOSELITO LOPEZ y ROCO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On August 24, 1996, in Quezon City, 16-year-old Maricel Cula was asleep in her house after a drinking session involving her father, Manuel Cula, his friend Joselito Lopez, her live-in partner Daniel Sto. Tomas, and friend Philip Villanueva. She was awakened by her father, Manuel, mashing her breast. When she resisted and kicked him, he punched her stomach three times. Manuel then lifted her and passed her to Joselito, who carried her to the upper deck of the house. Manuel undressed her while poking a knife at her, threatening her with harm. Petrified, Maricel was raped successively by both men, with Joselito also gagging her mouth and threatening to kill her if she reported the incident. The following day, Maricel reported the crime to her grandmother and mother, leading to a police report and medical examination.
The prosecution presented Maricel’s detailed testimony, corroborated by eyewitness Philip Villanueva, who saw the initial assault but was too afraid to intervene. The medico-legal officer confirmed findings consistent with recent sexual intercourse. The defense relied on denial and alibi, with Manuel claiming the charge was fabricated due to marital discord. The trial court convicted both accused, sentencing Manuel Cula to death and Joselito Lopez to reclusion perpetua, and awarding damages.

ISSUE

The core issue for automatic review is whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellants of rape and imposed the appropriate penalties and damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties and damages. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly Maricel’s credible and consistent testimony, corroborated by an eyewitness and medical findings, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of denial and alibi, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim.
Regarding penalties, the Court held that the crime committed was qualified rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, due to the victim’s minority (16 years old) and the relationship (father and daughter) as to Manuel Cula, and the use of a deadly weapon and conspiracy as to both. However, the death penalty could not be imposed on Manuel Cula because the information failed to allege with specificity his relationship to the victim as a qualifying circumstance, a requisite for imposing the supreme penalty. Consequently, the prescribed penalty for both accused, being composed of two indivisible penalties (death and reclusion perpetua), was reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code as there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
On civil liability, each accused was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. Additionally, Manuel Cula was ordered to pay P20,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count to deter similar paternal abuse.