EN BANC

[G.R. No. 143677. May 9, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. BENITO LACHICA y LLAMAS, appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

The minority of the victim and her specific relationship with the offender must be alleged in the information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial; otherwise the crime would be simple, not qualified, rape; and the proper penalty, reclusion perpetua -- not death. Also, the allegation in the information that the victim was below seven years old must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so cannot justify the imposition of the penalty of death.

The Case

For automatic review before this Court is the April 28, 2000 Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya (Branch 27) in Criminal Case No. 3451, finding Benito Lachica y Llamas guilty of qualified rape beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to death. The decretal portion of the Decision reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, finding accused Benito Lachica y Llamas GUILTY of the commission of the felony of rape, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection. Costs against the accused.”[2]

The September 30, 1998 Information[3] against appellant was worded as follows:[4]

“That on or about July 1, 1998, in Barangay Quezon, Municipality of Solano, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused taking advantage of his relationship with the victim as the uncle of the latter and taking advantage of his superior strength, with lewd designs, by means of force, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of private complainant SHARMAINE LACHICA, 5 years old, niece of the accused, against the victim’s will and consent, to her own damage and prejudice.”[5]

When arraigned on November 27, 1998, appellant, with the assistance of his counsel de oficio,[6] pleaded not guilty.[7] Pretrial was held, and trial ensued thereafter. Appellant was subsequently found guilty of qualified rape.

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

In its Brief,[8] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the facts in the following manner:

“On July 1, 1998 at between 3:00 to 4:00 p.m., while Sharmaine Lachica, 5 years old, was playing near the house of the accused, he called her to go inside his house. The accused then unzipped his pants and placed his niece on his lap. Then he inserted something hard into her vagina. She felt pain but the accused placed his hand on her mouth. Later, she went down the house and approached her grandmother, Anita Lachica, the mother of the accused. Sharmaine complained to her of pain [in] her private part. The old woman and her daughter, Virginia, examined her granddaughter’s genital and she saw it reddish and swollen. When she asked her what happened, Sharmaine, told her that she came from her uncle, the accused, and that he made her sit on his lap while he was seated on a chair. As she thought that she encountered bad spirits, Anita offered water, and the following day she doused the private part and the entire body of Sharmaine with the water to make her well. But her vagina continued to swell so she brought the young Sharmaine to the clinic of Dr. Cadiente (Dr. Ester Cadiente-Remigio) to know what was happening to her granddaughter and to know the cause of the swelling of her vagina. Dr. Cadiente-Remigio after observing that pus was coming out of Sharmaine’s private part, asked for a urinalysis to be conducted and the test showed the existence of urinary tract infection (UTI). As she also noted that there was a swelling and slight hematoma on both labia and that Anita complained of discharge on Sharmaine’s panty, the physician advised Anita to go to Dr. Bella Gagate-Rodriguez whose clinic was just beside her office, Dr. Rodriguez being an Obstretician-Gynecologist. As Dr. Rodriguez was not around, Anita was told to go to the Veteran’s Regional Hospital, but the old woman said she could not go because she was very weak. She gave medication to Sharmaine and told them to go back to her clinic after a week. When Anita and Sharmaine came back and still complained of discharge on the girl’s panty, she referred them to Dr. Rodriguez. Dr. Rodriguez examined the victim and discovered a laceration at between 3:00-4:00 o’clock. Dr. Rodriguez then referred Anita and Sharmaine to the Veteran’s Regional Hospital. In the said hospital, Sharmaine’s entire body was meticulously examined by Dr. Josephine Guiang and Dr. Vangie Malapo. They also minutely examined the entire genitalia of Sharmaine. The girl suffered two lacerations in her hymen at 3:00 o’clock and 8 o’clock, the latter being deep. They also ordered the testing of the greenish discharge with foul smell coming from the genitalia of Sharmaine. The laboratory examination showed that Sharmaine was suffering from gonorrhea, which could only be transmitted by means of sexual intercourse.”[9] (Citations omitted)

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, appellant’s statement of facts is as follows:[10]

“Benito Lachica testified that prior to his detention at the Provincial Jail of Nueva Vizcaya, he was then a tricycle driver. The owner of the tricycle he was driving is his cousin. He drove the tricycle five (5) days a week f[ro]m Monday to Friday. He plied his route from 6:00 o’clock in the morning up to 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon. He would take his lunch in their house usually at 11:00 o’clock in the morning. After lunch, he would take a rest up to 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

“On July 1, 1998, he took his lunch in their house together with his family and Montano Desiar. After taking his lunch, he rested for fifteen (15) minutes. At 12:30 in the afternoon, he continued ferrying passengers up to 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon. When he left their house after his lunch, Montano stayed in their house. He claimed that he never inflicted physical punishment upon his niece Sharmaine Lachica. He admitted that he and Montano Desiar were investigated in connection with the complain[t] filed by Sharmaine Lachica.

“He denied that he was inflicted with gonorrhea prior to his detention nor have been treated with a disease contracted thru sexual intercourse.”[11] (Citations omitted)

Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of complainant and gave little weight to appellant’s denial. It found that appellant had, indeed, carnal knowledge of the victim.

The court a quo also ruled that when the crime was committed, the victim was a child below seven (7) years old, and the offender a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree. Thus, it sentenced him to death by lethal injection.

Hence this automatic review before us.[12]

Issues

In his Brief, appellant faults the trial court with this lone assignment of error:

“The trial court gravely erred in imposing the death penalty upon accused-appellant despite failure of the prosecution (1) to prove the real age of the victim and (2) to allege in the information that accused-appellant is a relative of the victim by consanguinity within the third civil degree.”[13]

The Court’s Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious; the penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Preliminary Matter: