GR 173787; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173787; April 23, 2007
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Mario Guillermo y Esteban, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Mario Guillermo was charged with two counts of incestuous rape against his 14-year-old daughter, XXX. The first incident allegedly occurred on November 18, 2000, when XXX awoke to find her father on top of her, having sexual intercourse with her. The second incident was said to have happened on April 29, 2001, when XXX woke up to find her shorts down and her genitalia wet, with appellant later admitting to inserting his penis. The prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, her mother, and a medical doctor. The defense relied on denial, alleging the victim was coached by her mother and had a habit of sleepwalking, but notably failed to specifically rebut the allegations concerning the second incident.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Guillermo of two counts of qualified rape and imposed the death penalty for each count. Pursuant to People v. Mateo, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and the penalties. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for two counts of qualified rape and the imposition of the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The Court found the victim’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent, thereby satisfying the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of denial, which is inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive and categorical identification by the victim. The failure of the defense to specifically deny the second incident in the appellant’s brief was deemed significant.
However, due to the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count. Regarding damages, the Court adjusted the awards in line with prevailing jurisprudence for qualified rape. Appellant was ordered to pay the victim ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. The Court emphasized that moral damages in rape cases are awarded without need of proof, as moral suffering is conclusively presumed.