GR 140406; (April, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140406; April 17, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Antonio Desuyo alias “Tony,” accused-appellant.
FACTS
Maricel Peru Desuyo was sleeping beside her younger sister in September 1996 when she was awakened by her father, Antonio Desuyo, caressing her breasts. He was naked except for his underpants. He threatened to kill her if she made noise, removed her underwear, mounted her, and forced his penis into her vagina. Maricel did not report the incident due to fear and not wanting to trouble her mother who worked far away. The accused repeated the sexual molestation almost every day from September 1996 to August 1997, each time threatening to kill her. On August 14, 1997, the last assault occurred. On August 18, 1997, Maricel reported the ordeal to a police officer and her aunt, Luisa Galit. A medical examination revealed old hymenal lacerations. During the preliminary examination, the accused asked for forgiveness, which Maricel refused. An Information was filed accusing Antonio Desuyo of raping his 15-year-old daughter. The trial court convicted him of “multiple incestuous rape” and sentenced him to death. The accused appealed, arguing the Information was defective for not stating exact dates and that the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s age with certainty.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Information for “multiple rape” is defective for failing to state the exact dates of commission.
2. Whether the court a quo erred in imposing the death penalty despite the failure to establish the victim’s age with certainty.
RULING
1. On the defective Information: The Supreme Court ruled the Information was not defective. The exact date of commission is not an essential element of rape. The remedy against an indictment lacking definiteness in time is a motion for a bill of particulars, which the accused never filed. Objections to the form of the information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The dates alleged (“within the month of September 1996 up to August 18, 1997”) were sufficient, consistent with precedents.
2. On the penalty: The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. While the prosecution established the accused’s guilt for two counts of rape (the first in September 1996 and the last on August 14, 1997), the imposition of the death penalty was erroneous. For the penalty of death to apply under RA 7659, the victim must be under 18 and the offender a parent, which must be alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Although the Information alleged Maricel was 14 and the accused’s daughter, and the relationship was uncontested, no independent proof (e.g., birth certificate) was presented to prove her minority and filiation. Given the gravity of the death penalty, such proof is critical. Therefore, the crime is simple rape, not qualified rape.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court is MODIFIED. The accused is found guilty of two (2) counts of simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count. He is ordered to pay civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 and moral damages of ₱50,000.00 for each count.