G.R. Nos. 140779-80 December 3, 2002
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Laurito Arriola y Santander, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Laurito Arriola was charged with two counts of rape against his stepdaughter, Judylou Verso. The first information (Criminal Case No. 97-130) alleged rape “on or about the month of May 1995” when Judylou was 9 years old. The second (Criminal Case No. 97-131) alleged rape “on or about the 5th day of January 1997” when she was 10. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The cases were jointly tried. The prosecution evidence established that on January 23, 1997, Judylou created a commotion at school when appellant tried to fetch her. Teacher Olivia Paulo, after prodding, learned Judylou had been sexually molested. Judylou was examined by Dr. Grace Santiago, who found a hymenal tear and healed lacerations. Judylou testified that in May 1995, appellant, her stepfather whom she called “Papa,” raped her inside their house, threatening to kill her and her family if she told anyone. He raped her again on January 5, 1997, with similar threats. She eventually told her mother, who later left her with her grandmother. Appellant denied the charges and insinuated Judylou’s motive was vindictiveness due to his bad treatment. The trial court found Judylou’s testimony credible and convicted appellant of two counts of rape, sentencing him to death for each and ordering indemnity of P75,000 per count.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting appellant of two counts of rape based on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, the medico-legal findings, and the alleged motive of vindictiveness.

RULING

The trial court did not err. The conviction is affirmed with modification as to the penalty and damages. The Supreme Court held:
1. The trial court correctly believed Judylou’s claim of rape. Her testimony was straightforward, credible, and consistent. The fear instilled by appellant’s threats explained her initial silence and subsequent commotion at school.
2. The trial court did not err in its assessment of the medico-legal findings. Dr. Santiago did not categorically state the laceration was self-inflicted; she merely enumerated possible causes. The findings of a hymenal tear and healed lacerations corroborated Judylou’s testimony of sexual abuse and frequent penetration.
3. The trial court correctly disregarded the alleged motive of vindictiveness. Judylou’s young and innocent mind could not have concocted a story of rape. Her prompt reporting to her teachers and the physical findings negated the claim of fabrication.
4. The trial court did not err in convicting the accused. The prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of rape. However, the penalty is modified. For the rape committed in May 1995 (Criminal Case No. 97-130), the penalty is reclusion perpetua, as the qualifying circumstance of relationship (stepfather-stepdaughter) was not alleged in the information. For the rape committed on January 5, 1997 (Criminal Case No. 97-131), the death penalty is proper as the information alleged the qualifying circumstance of relationship, and the victim was under 18. The death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua due to the prohibition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 9346 . Civil indemnity is increased to P75,000 for each count, and moral and exemplary damages are also awarded.