G.R. No. 136737. May 23, 2001.
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ben Libo-on, accused-appellant.

FACTS

This is an automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting accused-appellant Ben Libo-on of the rape of his fourteen-year-old niece, Analyn Caballes, and imposing the death penalty. An Information dated November 4, 1997, charged him with rape by force and intimidation under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act Nos. 7659 and 8353. Before arraignment, the prosecution submitted an affidavit of desistance purportedly signed by the complainant and her mother, Erlinda Caballes. The prosecution did not move to dismiss but left the matter to the court. A clarificatory hearing was held. The mother affirmed the voluntariness of the desistance, stating she pitied the accused’s children and denied receiving payment. The father, Ananias Caballes, stated he did not agree to the settlement and wanted to continue the prosecution. The court declared the affidavit not binding, gave custody of the complainant to the “Bahay Dangupan,” and proceeded with the trial after the accused pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution evidence established that on November 2, 1997, the complainant, then 14, was at her grandmother’s house for a party. Her grandmother asked her to buy beer. While walking to the store, accused-appellant suddenly appeared, grabbed her, and took her to an abandoned house. There, he forced her to lie down, removed her skirt, and had sexual intercourse with her despite her struggles and cries. Afterward, she went home and reported the incident to her father, who accompanied her to the police station and the Davao Medical Center for examination. Dr. Marivic Mosqueda examined her and found old, healed hymenal lacerations and the presence of spermatozoa in her vagina. The complainant’s mother later testified she now supported continuing the case and confirmed the accused was the complainant’s uncle and her age. SPO3 Conrado Sinsona, Jr. testified on the police blotter and the accused’s invitation for questioning.
The defense presented accused-appellant Ben Libo-on and three other witnesses. The accused denied the rape, claiming that prior to the incident, the complainant’s mother, Erlinda Caballes, had borrowed money from him and became angry when he refused a second loan. On the day of the incident, he was drinking with friends until 10:00 p.m., after which his wife fetched him, and they went to his mother-in-law’s house to sleep. He was later awakened by policemen who took him to the station without explanation and jailed him. The following morning, Erlinda Caballes told him he was jailed for molesting her daughter.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the complainant credible, straightforward, and consistent. The medical findings, particularly the presence of spermatozoa, corroborated her claim of recent sexual intercourse. The defense of denial and alibi was weak and uncorroborated. The affidavit of desistance, especially given the father’s opposition and the circumstances, was unreliable and did not negate the commission of the crime. The qualifying circumstance of relationship (uncle-niece) was duly proven, as the accused was the husband of the complainant’s aunt. However, the Court found that the special qualifying circumstance of the victim’s minority (below 18) and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged in the information and proved during trial. While relationship was alleged and proven, the information did not specifically allege the victim’s age as below 18. Although the information described her as a “14 year old minor,” this was stated in the context of the force and intimidation allegation, not as a qualifying circumstance for imposing the death penalty under the applicable law (Republic Act No. 7659). Consequently, the death penalty could not be imposed. The Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The accused was also ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim.