GR 133946; (September, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133946 ; September 27, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OSCAR NOGAR y MACEDA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The case involves the statutory rape of Roselle Labenia, a nine-year-old girl. The prosecution’s evidence established that in the early morning of February 8, 1996, in Pasig City, accused-appellant Oscar Nogar, the uncle of the victim by affinity, entered the room where Roselle was sleeping with other children. He undressed her, mounted her, and succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina despite her struggles. He threatened her to keep quiet. After the act, Roselle washed herself and later reported the incident. A medico-legal examination confirmed her non-virgin state, revealing healed hymenal lacerations. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Nogar was at the Navotas Fish Port purchasing fish at the time of the alleged rape, supported by the testimonies of the fish vendor and his taxi driver.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court was proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the child-victim to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. It held that the victim’s positive identification of her uncle as the perpetrator prevails over the defense of alibi, which was not substantiated by clear and convincing proof of the physical impossibility for Nogar to be at the crime scene. The Court noted that the distance between Pasig and Navotas could be negotiated in less than an hour given light traffic late at night, thus failing to establish impossibility. A purported letter of apology from the victim was deemed insignificant as it was vague and allegedly copied under instruction.
Regarding the penalty, the Court ruled that the death penalty could not be imposed. While the trial court considered the qualifying circumstance of relationship (the victim being a relative within the third civil degree of affinity and under eighteen), this circumstance was not alleged in the Information. Under the rules on criminal procedure, qualifying circumstances that increase the penalty to death must be specifically pleaded in the charge. Its absence in the Information barred its use for imposing the capital punishment. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court also modified the civil liability, awarding an additional P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, separate from the P50,000.00 moral damages granted by the trial court.