G.R. No. 145223 ; February 11, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. ALBERTO LUCERIANO, appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Alberto Luceriano, was convicted of rape and sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court. The information alleged that on January 3, 1998, in Dinalungan, Aurora, he had carnal knowledge of his common-law wife’s daughter, eleven-year-old Mysan Onde. The prosecution established that on the night in question, Mysan was alone at home. Appellant woke her, covered her mouth, pointed a knife, and threatened her before forcing her to undress and raping her. Mysan reported the incident to her mother the next day, leading to appellant’s arrest and a medical examination on January 5, 1998.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Appellant claimed he was in San Ildefonso, Casiguran, on the date of the incident, working as a farmer and could not have traveled to Dinalungan due to lack of transportation. He argued that the medical findings of “healed” hymenal lacerations were inconsistent with a rape allegedly committed just two days prior, suggesting Mysan had prior sexual activity.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the medical findings; and (2) whether the death penalty was properly imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. On the first issue, the Court held that the medical findings did not negate the rape. The physician explained that a “superficial healed laceration” could have been inflicted at least a week before the examination, which was consistent with the alleged January 3 incident. The Court emphasized that the credible and categorical testimony of the victim, who was a minor, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. Her testimony withstood rigorous cross-examination and was consistent with human experience. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over her positive identification.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the death penalty could not be imposed. While the victim was under twelve, a circumstance warranting the death penalty under the law at the time, the information failed to allege her exact age with the requisite specificity. It merely described her as “eleven year old” without stating she was below twelve. For the supreme penalty to apply, the qualifying circumstance of the victim’s age being under twelve must be alleged with certainty in the information. This fatal omission warranted the reduction of the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court also affirmed the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages.