People v. Bolatete
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Reyah Lea Guivencan, a minor under 12 years of age, filed three separate complaints against her stepfather, Melanio Bolatete, for statutory rape. The alleged incidents occurred in June 1993, August 1994, and March 1995. The complainant was assisted by a social welfare officer in filing the complaints. Procedural History: The accused pleaded not guilty to all charges. After joint trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Melanio Bolatete guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of statutory rape and sentenced him to death for each count, with moral damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Petition: The accused-appellant argued that the RTC erred in convicting him without giving credit to his evidence and in not considering inconsistencies in the prosecution's witnesses. He claimed the victim fabricated the accusations due to resentment over his discipline.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of statutory rape. Whether the qualifying circumstance of the accused being the stepfather should be considered for the penalty of death, despite not being alleged in the indictment. Whether the awarded damages are proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for three counts of statutory rape but modified the penalty. The accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. The Court also affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count and awarded an additional P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt for statutory rape: The Court held that the elements of statutory rape, namely carnal knowledge of a woman and the victim being under twelve years of age, were sufficiently proven. The victim's testimony, though from a minor, was found to be credible, straightforward, and consistent, withstanding a rigorous cross-examination. The Court reiterated the doctrine that sexual intercourse with a girl under twelve years old is always rape, and proof of force or consent is immaterial in statutory rape. On the penalty and qualifying circumstances: The Court ruled that while the accused was the stepfather of the victim, this qualifying circumstance was not alleged in the criminal complaints. Citing People vs. Garcia, the Court emphasized that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment to warrant a higher penalty, such as death. Failure to do so constitutes a denial of due process. Therefore, the accused could not be penalized with death based on this circumstance, nor could it be considered an aggravating circumstance for simple rape, which carries the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. On the damages awarded: The Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages, recognizing that the victim's suffering is inherent in the crime of rape. Additionally, the Court awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape, consistent with the policy of awarding such indemnity to victims of rape. The Court noted that the increased civil indemnity of P75,000.00 for heinous crimes against chastity is not applicable when the death penalty is not imposable due to deficiencies in the indictment.
Main Doctrine
Sexual intercourse with a female under twelve (12) years old constitutes statutory rape, regardless of proof of force or consent, as the absence of free consent is presumed. The elements are carnal knowledge and the victim being below twelve years of age. Qualifying circumstances for enhanced penalties must be alleged in the indictment.