G.R. No. 145349; July 29, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JENIS PATEÑO, Appellant

FACTS

The appellant, Jenis Pateño, was charged with the rape of his twelve-year-old daughter, Elgen Pateño, on August 31, 1996, in Gitagum, Misamis Oriental. The prosecution alleged that while Elgen was sleeping alone in their house, her father removed her underwear, removed his own briefs, and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her. Elgen testified that she was in pain and could not shout because the appellant was kissing her. She immediately reported the incident to a policeman, leading to her father’s arrest. A medical examination conducted months later revealed an old, healed hymenal laceration, which the examining physician opined was compatible with sexual intercourse.
The appellant denied the accusations, presenting an alibi that he was working and then sleeping at the material time. He also suggested that the charge was fabricated due to a marital dispute, alleging that his wife had abandoned the family and instigated the complaint after a confrontation. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant of rape and imposed the death penalty, citing the qualifying circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of the victim’s parent, allegedly the mother who witnessed it through a hole in the wall.

ISSUE

The core issue for automatic review is whether the appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the appellant’s guilt established beyond reasonable doubt. Elgen’s candid and consistent testimony, corroborated by the medical findings of an old hymenal laceration, was deemed credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction. The appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi were weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The claim of fabrication due to a marital quarrel was unsubstantiated.
However, the Court deleted the imposition of the death penalty. The qualifying circumstance that the rape was committed “in full view of the parent” was not validly established. This circumstance was not alleged in the information, a fatal omission for a qualifying circumstance that increases the penalty. Furthermore, it was not sufficiently proven during trial, as the alleged witness, the victim’s mother, did not testify. Even if considered, the circumstance under Republic Act No. 7659 requires that the rape be committed in the presence or full view of the specified relatives, which connotes a purposeful, conscious display. The mother’s alleged chance witnessing by peeping through a hole did not satisfy this requirement. Thus, the crime committed was simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The appellant was also ordered to pay the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.