GR 172068; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172068 ; August 7, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLANDO MANGUBAT, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Rolando Mangubat, was charged with two counts of rape against his granddaughter, AAA. The first incident occurred sometime in 1997, and the second on June 13, 1998, in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the straightforward and categorical testimony of AAA, who was ten years old at the time of the first rape and eleven at the time of the second. She detailed how the appellant, taking advantage of their being alone, ordered her to lie down and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her through force and intimidation. Her testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Adelaida Malaluan. The defense, for its part, interposed denial and alibi, claiming the accusations were fabricated as retaliation for a whipping he gave AAA, and argued that the alleged acts were impossible in their small, crowded one-room house.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for two counts of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the findings of the Court of Appeals, which found the testimony of AAA to be credible, natural, and consistent. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the credibility of the victim’s testimony is paramount, especially when she is a minor. AAA’s detailed account of the incidents, including the pain she felt and her fear of the appellant, bore the hallmarks of truth. The defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and credible identification by the victim. The Court also found that the alleged motive for retaliation was insufficient to overturn the conviction, as no evidence showed that a minor would subject herself to the ordeal of a trial and public scrutiny merely over a whipping.
However, the Court modified the classification of the crimes from qualified rape to simple rape. While the relationship of step-grandfather and granddaughter is covered by the qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, this relationship must be alleged with certainty in the Information. The Informations in this case merely referred to AAA as the “granddaughter,” without specifying the precise legal nature of the relationship (whether by affinity, as a step-grandfather, or by consanguinity). This lack of specificity precludes the imposition of the death penalty. Consequently, the qualifying circumstance was not duly alleged and proven. The appellant is therefore guilty of two counts of simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were also awarded to the victim.