G.R. No. 139229 ; April 22, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESMERALDO CANA Y DEL VALLE alias “SMITH”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging appellant Esmeraldo Cana y del Valle with the rape of ten-year-old Jovelyn Listana on January 28, 1997, in Vinzons, Camarines Norte. The prosecution presented Jovelyn, who testified that appellant, the live-in partner of her aunt with whom she lived, undressed her, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing pain. He threatened to hang her if she resisted and warned her not to tell anyone. She reported the incident to “Ate Belen” (Belen Senes), the purok president, who then reported it to the barangay captain and the police. Dr. Marcelito Abas medically examined Jovelyn and found a superficial hymenal laceration consistent with sexual intercourse. The defense presented witnesses, including appellant’s son Gerwin and sister Gracita Vazquez, who testified that Jovelyn had a habit of fondling a dog’s penis. Appellant himself testified that on the night in question, he only touched Jovelyn’s vagina and inserted his middle finger, but denied having carnal knowledge. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of rape and sentenced him to death, with civil indemnity of P50,000.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing leading questions during the direct examination of the complainant.
2. Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty.

RULING

1. The trial court did not err in allowing leading questions. Under the Rules of Court, leading questions are permitted when there is difficulty in getting direct answers from a witness who is a child of tender years. Jovelyn was young, unlettered, and found it difficult to recall events, making the allowance of leading questions justified. Moreover, her testimony remained credible and comprehensive even without the leading questions.
2. The prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Jovelyn’s testimony was candid, plain, and straightforward. The medical findings of Dr. Abas corroborated her account of penetration. The defense’s imputation of ill motive was unconvincing; it is highly inconceivable that a young barrio lass would fabricate a charge of defloration and undergo the ordeal of a public trial unless motivated by a desire for justice. The element of force and intimidation was established through appellant’s threats. Furthermore, since the victim was below twelve years old, force or intimidation need not be proven as the law presumes it.
3. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. The Information did not allege the victim’s age as a qualifying circumstance for the imposition of the death penalty. It merely stated she was a “ten (10) year old girl” in the narrative of facts but did not specifically allege her age as a qualifying circumstance under the law. For the death penalty to be imposed, the qualifying circumstance must be specifically alleged in the Information. Since it was not, the crime committed is simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua, not death. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 is proper.