G.R. No. 137106 -07 January 31, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ELPEDES y SUNAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jose Elpedes was charged with two counts of rape against his daughter, Alma. The first alleged rape occurred in 1991 when Alma was nine years old, and the second on February 11, 1997. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Elpedes of the 1997 rape, imposing the death penalty, but acquitted him of the 1991 charge due to insufficient evidence. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
The prosecution’s evidence established that on February 11, 1997, Elpedes, taking advantage of his parental authority, entered the room where his 14-year-old daughter was sleeping, strangled and boxed her, and had carnal knowledge against her will. This act resulted in Alma’s pregnancy, though the child was stillborn. The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming Elpedes was elsewhere during the alleged incident.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the alleged discrepancy between the date in the Information (February 11, 1997) and Alma’s testimony (August 11, 1997) warranted acquittal; (2) whether inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses undermined their credibility; and (3) whether the death penalty was properly imposed despite the Information not specifically alleging Alma was under eighteen at the time of the rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. On the first issue, the Court held the date is not a material element of the crime of rape. The variance between the date alleged and the date testified to was a minor inconsistency that did not affect the veracity of the core accusation of sexual violation, especially since the birth of the child corroborated the timeframe. On the second issue, the Court ruled that minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, particularly on collateral matters, do not destroy credibility but may even enhance it by showing their testimonies were not rehearsed. The straightforward and categorical testimony of the victim, who positively identified her father as the perpetrator, was given full credence.
On the crucial third issue, the Court held that the imposition of the death penalty was erroneous. For the death penalty to be applied under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a parent, such qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the Information. The Information in this case failed to allege that Alma was under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape on February 11, 1997. Consequently, the crime is simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The Court thus modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua and affirmed the award of civil indemnity and moral damages.