G.R. Nos. 138439-41; June 25, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO PANGANIBAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Three separate informations were filed against accused-appellant Mario Panganiban for the rape of his daughter, Maria Regina G. Panganiban. The informations alleged rapes occurring in September 1986 (when Regina was eight years old), January 1996, and November 1996, all in Manila. Mario pleaded not guilty, and the cases were consolidated for trial. The prosecution presented Regina, who testified that her father first raped her in September 1986, after her mother left for work abroad, and continued to rape her regularly until her mother’s return in 1990. The rapes resumed in 1994 when her mother went abroad again, with specific incidents in January 1996 (in the bathroom) and November 1996. She revealed the rapes to her aunt in March 1997, leading to a complaint. Dr. Armie Soreta Umil’s medico-legal report confirmed Regina was no longer a virgin. The defense, led by Mario, denied the accusations, claiming Regina fabricated the charges because he opposed her relationship with her boyfriend. The defense also presented Mario’s two sons and other relatives and neighbors to support his claim and attest to Regina’s normal behavior. The Regional Trial Court convicted Mario of three counts of rape, imposing the death penalty for the first two counts (Criminal Cases Nos. 97-158615 and 97-158616) and reclusion perpetua for the third (Criminal Case No. 97-158617), and ordered him to pay damages. The case is before the Supreme Court on automatic review due to the death penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court grievously erred in finding that the appellant had carnal knowledge of the private complainant in September 1986, January 1996, and November 1996, thereby convicting him of three counts of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. The Court found Regina’s testimony to be credible, straightforward, and convincing, and upheld the trial court’s assessment. The defense of denial and imputation of ill-motive was deemed weak and unsubstantiated. However, the Court ruled that the death penalty could not be imposed for the rape committed in September 1986 (Criminal Case No. 97-158615) because the information failed to allege Regina’s exact age (eight years) and her relationship to the accused as qualifying circumstances for the death penalty under the law in effect at the time of the commission ( Republic Act No. 7659 ). The information only stated she was a “minor, then (8) eight years of age” and “father of the said Maria Regina,” which was insufficient for a qualifying allegation. Thus, the penalty for that count was reduced to reclusion perpetua. For the rape in January 1996 (Criminal Case No. 97-158616), the information properly alleged the qualifying circumstance of the victim being under eighteen years of age and the offender being the parent of the victim, warranting the death penalty. However, pursuant to the Court’s ruling in People v. Echegaray, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The penalty for the November 1996 rape (Criminal Case No. 97-158617) remained reclusion perpetua. The awards of moral, nominal, and exemplary damages were affirmed.