G.R. No. 135560-61, January 24, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN y ROSLIN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Bonifacio San Agustin, was charged with two counts of qualified rape against his 12-year-old daughter, Jessebelle. The informations alleged the rapes occurred on July 1, 1997, and September 15, 1997, in Victoria, Laguna. The victim testified that on July 1, 1997, her father barged into her room, threatened her with a knife, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. She stated the abuse continued nightly in July and August 1997, and on weekends in September 1997, with the last incident on September 15. A medical examination revealed a healed hymenal laceration consistent with sexual intercourse.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Appellant claimed he was working in Imus, Cavite, on both dates and only came home monthly. His sister, Eva de Jesus, corroborated his alibi, testifying the victim was mistaken about the date and even slept at her house on September 15. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of two counts of qualified rape and imposed the death penalty for each, prompting automatic review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for two counts of qualified rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the victim’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. In rape cases, the complainant’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The medical findings, though indicating a healed laceration, corroborated her claim of prior sexual abuse. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Appellant admitted travel from his workplace in Cavite to his home in Laguna took only about five hours, making his presence at the locus criminis on the specified evenings entirely possible.
The qualifying circumstance of relationship (father-daughter) was duly alleged in the informations and proven during trial. However, the Court modified the penalty. At the time of the commission of the crimes, Republic Act No. 7659 prescribed the death penalty for rape when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a parent. While these conditions were met, the Court held that the death penalty could not be imposed because the informations failed to allege the victim’s minority with specificity. The informations stated she was a “twelve (12) years old girl,” but did not explicitly state she was “under eighteen years of age,” a requisite for the imposition of the death penalty under the law. Consequently, the proper penalty for each count is reclusion perpetua. The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were affirmed, and exemplary damages were also awarded.