GR 166617; (July, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166617 ; July 3, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. AGUSTIN ABELLERA y CAMANA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Agustin Abellera was charged with multiple counts of rape and attempted rape against his minor daughters, AAA and BBB. The incidents spanned from 1986 to 1996. In 1986, he raped seven-year-old AAA. In 1992, he again raped AAA, then 14, threatening her with a knife. In April 1996, he raped 14-year-old BBB. In October 1996, he attempted to rape BBB but was thwarted when she kicked him and escaped. The victims’ testimonies were corroborated by their birth certificates proving filiation and minority. The Regional Trial Court convicted Abellera, imposing the death penalty for one count of rape and reclusion perpetua for others. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for the death-eligible rape to reclusion perpetua, citing Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the death penalty.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for the qualified rape committed in 1996, in light of Republic Act No. 9346 .
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications to the awards of damages. The legal logic is clear: while the qualifying circumstance of the victim being a daughter under eighteen (relationship and minority) was proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting the imposition of the death penalty under the law at the time of commission ( Republic Act No. 7659 ), the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 , which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, must be applied. This is a favorable retroactive application of a penal law, as it mitigates the punishment. Consequently, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua, which is one degree lower than death according to the graduated scale under Article 61 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the testimonies of the victims were credible, consistent, and sufficient to sustain conviction. The defense of denial and alibi, uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification by the victims.