G.R. No. 136141 ; October 9, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Domingo Tupaz y Castor, Jr., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Domingo Tupaz y Castor, Jr. was charged with the rape of his daughter, Gemma Rose G. Tupaz, allegedly committed on May 7, 1995, in Rosario, Cavite. The Information stated he took advantage of his superior strength over his 16-year-old daughter. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence established that on May 7, 1995, Gemma Rose was ordered by her father to go home. Her father arrived home drunk, ordered her upstairs, hit her with a stick when she refused, and then raped her. Gemma Rose testified she had been raped several times since she was 12 years old. She finally reported the incident, leading to her father’s arrest. A medico-legal examination revealed her hymen was intact but distensible with a wide orifice, consistent with penetration. The defense presented alibi, claiming the accused-appellant was at work as a fisherman during the alleged incident, and alleged the complaint was fabricated by relatives seeking revenge. The Regional Trial Court convicted Domingo Tupaz Jr. of rape and sentenced him to death.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused despite alleged inconsistencies in the private complainant’s testimony.
2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove the private complainant’s minority with independent evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies in Gemma Rose’s testimony (regarding the presence of her siblings during the rape and whether she informed her mother) were minor and inconsequential, and did not detract from her overall credibility. Her testimony was given in a straightforward and emotional manner, and it is inconceivable for a daughter to fabricate such a charge against her father without motive. The accused-appellant’s alibi was rejected as inherently weak and not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. On the second issue, the Court held that while the rape was proven, the imposition of the death penalty was not justified. The qualifying circumstance of the victim’s minority (being under 18 and the offender a parent) requires independent proof of age, such as a birth certificate. The prosecution only presented Gemma Rose’s testimony that she was 16, without any independent documentary evidence. Consequently, the crime is simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua, not death. The Court modified the trial court’s decision, sentencing accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity of P50,000, moral damages of P50,000, and exemplary damages of P25,000.