G.R. Nos. 134449-50; October 25, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Pedro Hernandez, was charged with two counts of rape against his minor daughter, Wilma Nieva Hernandez. The first incident allegedly occurred in October 1994, when Wilma was 13 years old, and the second on February 24, 1997. Wilma testified that her father, through force, intimidation, and physical violence, sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, with the February 1997 incident being the last before she escaped. She described their one-room dwelling where the assaults took place, her fear preventing her from shouting, and her failed attempt to inform her mother via a letter. Her testimony was corroborated by her mother, Gloria Hernandez, and a barangay councilwoman, Justina Garcia, who assisted Wilma after her escape. Medical examination revealed healed hymenal lacerations consistent with penile penetration.
The defense presented alibi and denial. Appellant claimed he was elsewhere during the alleged incidents and suggested the charges were fabricated due to family discord. The trial court convicted Hernandez on both counts and imposed the death penalty, prompting automatic review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for two counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Wilma’s credibility, noting that testimonies of child-victims of rape are given full weight and credit. Her detailed and consistent narration of the assaults, the natural reticence of a victim assaulted by her own father, and the corroborative testimonies of her mother and the councilwoman constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi and denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim.
However, the Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each count. For the 1994 rape, the death penalty was not applicable as the qualifying circumstance of the victim’s minority (under 18) and her relationship to the offender (father) must be both alleged in the information and proven during trial. The information for Criminal Case No. 9094 failed to allege the victim’s age, a requisite for imposing the death penalty under the law at the time. For the 1997 rape, while the information properly alleged both circumstances, the prosecution failed to present Wilma’s birth certificate or other competent evidence to prove her minority conclusively during trial. Consequently, the qualifying circumstance of minority was not proven, warranting the reduction of the penalty. The Court affirmed the award of moral damages.