CASE DIGEST: People vs. De la Pena

 

People vs. Lemuel de la Pena

G.R. No. 226398, Sept. 11, 2019

 

FACTS:

Several informations were filed against appellant charging him of raping AAA, his minor niece. These cases were consolidated, and appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses.

During trial, the prosecution presented AAA and her cousin, who was also raped by appellant, as witnesses. On the other hand, as part of his defense, appellant denied living with AAA in the same house as he was living in a shanty about 5 to 6 meters away from the house. Further, during the alleged period of the crime in 1996, he was detained for a case of robbery with homicide and was only released on March 27, 1998. Thereafter, he lived with DDD, his lived-in partner and their child. He was arrested again for violation of RA 9165, and when he was released, he resided in the house of his parents only for a short period of time until he was arrested again in 2002. He was released in 2003 but was again detained from 2004 to 2009. After being released in 2009, he resided in a different house.

On Feb. 27, 2014, the RTC found appellant guilty of 5 counts of rape under par. 2, Art. 266-A and one count of qualified raped under Art. 266-A in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353.

In its ruling, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime charged. AAA was able to clearly narrate the rape incidents. Likewise, she was able to narrate how appellant threatened to kill her if she told anyone what he did to her. Her accounts were vivid, candid, and straightforward. While it took AAA some time to report the rape due to death threats and shame, it did not affect her credibility nor undermine her charge of rape. Appellant’s defense of denial and alibi, on the other hand, is weak compared to AAA’s categorical testimony. Further, the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship were alleged in the Informations and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in finding appellant guilty of 5 counts of rape under par. 2, Art. 266-A and one qualified rape under Art. 266-A, in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353

RULING:

The Court dismissed the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the conviction of appellant. However, a modification of the nomenclature of the crime, the penalty imposed, and the damages awarded are in order in accordance with recent jurisprudence.

According to People v. Tulagan, when rape by sexual assault has been committed upon a child under 12 years old or demented, the appropriate designation of the crime and the imposable penalties are sexual assault under Art. 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 and reclusion temporal in its medium period. On the other hand, when rape by carnal knowledge has been committed upon a child of the same age, the appropriate designation of the crime and imposable penalties are rape under Art. 266-A(1) in relation to Art. 266-(B) of the RPC and reclusion perpetua, except when the victim is below 7 years old in which case death penalty shall be imposed. In this case, it is undisputed that AAA was only less than 12 years old during the commission of the crimes. Therefore, in view of the ruling in Tulagan, the Court deems it proper to modify the designation of the crimes, imposable penalties, and civil liabilities.