554 Phil. 199
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The undersigned 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, Officer-In-Charge hereby accuses Orlando A. Ubiña of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, and Section 2, of Republic Act 8353, committed as follows:Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.[5]
That on or about October 16, 2000, in the Municipality of Sto. Nino, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, [Or]Lando A. Ubiña, uncle of the offended party AAA, thus, have moral ascendancy over the aforesaid complainant, with lewd design and by the use of force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the offended party, AAA, a minor 15 years of age against her will.
Contrary to law.[4]
The series of events that led to the charge of rape started in the morning of October 9, 2000 when the appellant went to the Tabang Elementary School in Tabang, Sto. Niño, Cagayan (where AAA was a student) to inform her that her grandfather ("lolo") was in a hospital and needed her there. AAA went with the appellant but was told while at Tuguegarao that her lolo was in a different hospital. The appellant then brought her to Allacapan, Cagayan "in a house where the accused stayed when they were still young."After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
In a room at that house, the appellant removed AAA's pants and thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina while AAA was lying down. AAA resisted when she was made to lie down and cried as the appellant removed her pants. The appellant sexually abused [her] five (5) times in the seven (7) days they stayed in Allacapan.
From Allacapan, the appellant brought AAA in the afternoon of October 16, 2000 to her grandfather's house located in a rice field in Campo, Sto. Niño, Cagayan. He molested [her] twice at that location that same afternoon. Again, AAA cried as the appellant removed her shorts and panty.
After three (3) days, AAA's grandfather brought her home to San Manuel. With the appellant's warning not to tell anyone what transpired between them, AAA did not mention a word regarding the incident to either her grandfather at Sto. Niño, or to [her] father upon her arrival at home at San Manuel. It was only on the following day that she told her father about her ordeal. AAA's father reported the matter to the police the next day.
After initial police investigation, AAA was brought to the Cagayan Valley Medical Center where Dr. Jeliza Alcantara medically examined her. The examination disclosed several hymenal lacerations in her genitalia, indicating that she was no longer a virgin. The Medical Findings state:"Abdomen " flat, soft, normo active bowel sounds, non-tender
GUT � Normal External Genitalia, admits 2 fingers with ease (+) multiple complete and incomplete old healed hymenal lacerations
x x x
The appellant denied that he raped AAA but admitted that his father-in-law instructed him on October 9, 2000 to bring AAA home from school because he (the father-in-law who is also AAA's grandfather) was sick. [She] was summoned because no one else was available to look after him. After bringing [her] home, he went to his farm to pick up his wife. The appellant denied that he brought AAA to Allacapan, Cagayan; he had no reason to go there since he didn't know anybody from that place. He further claimed that on October 16, 2000, he was at Maguiling, Piat, Cagayan to have his buffalo carabao vaccinated; he went home by 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that same day.
The appellant claimed that he could not think of any reason why AAA would accuse him of rape, and surmised that [her] father could be angry at, or at the very least envious of, him. He narrated that AAA's father did not receive any dowry from his father-in-law while he and his wife were given a carabao.[6]
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the court finds that the guilt of the accused Orlando A. Ubiña for the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code has been established beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences the said accused Orlando A. Ubiña to suffer imprisonment of thirty (30) years of Reclusion Perpetua. He is further sentenced to indemnify the private complainant AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Decision of the trial court, thus:
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.[7]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan, Branch 11, in Criminal Case No. 895-T, finding the appellant guilty of the crime of rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION with respect to penalty and the awarded damages. The appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the complainant P50,000.00 as moral damages and, as awarded by the trial court, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. No pronouncement as to costs.The appellate court disregarded the aggravating circumstance of craft and the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship of the parties in the imposition of penalty because it noted that they were not alleged in the information. It however modified the penalty of 30 years' imprisonment imposed by the trial court and instead imposed the single and indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[8]
It is well-settled that the evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[14] No such facts or circumstances exist in the case at bar.
Q Do you know the accused in this case? A Yes, sir.
Q Why do you know him? A My mother and his wife are sisters.
x x x x Q Do you recall where were you at around 10:00 O'clock in the morning of October 9, 2000? A Yes, sir.
Q Where were you? A At Tabang Elementary School, sir.
Q At that particular date and time, do you still recall if somebody came to you? A Yes, sir.
Q Who was that person? A Lando Ubiña, sir.
Q Who is this Lando Ubiña, is he the same accused Lando Ubiña in this case? A Yes, the same person sir.
Q If he will be shown to you, will you be able to recognize him? A Yes, sir.
Q If he is now in the court room, will you please point at him? A There, sir (Witness pointed to a person who was asked his name and he answer [sic] that he is Lando Ubiña). [11]
x x x x FISCAL: Q Did you reach the hospital? A No, sir.
Q Where did you go then? A In Allacapan. x x x xQ While in Allacapan, do you recall if something happened to you?
x x x xA He removed my short pants.
x x x x COURT: Q What did you do when Orlando Ubiña removed your pants? A None, sir. Q You did not object or refuse? A I cried, sir.
FISCAL: Q After the accused removed your shortpants, what happened next or what did he do next? A He inserted his penis into my vagina.
x x x x Q Did you resist when he made you lie down? A Yes, sir. [12]
x x x x Q On October 16, 2000, do you remember if there was anything unusual that happened to you? A Yes, sir.
Q Will you tell what happened to you on October 16, 2000 at barrio Campo, Sto. Niño, Cagayan? A He again removed my shorts and panty and sexually abused me again.
Q What did you do when the accused removed your shorts and panty? A I cried again. Q How many times on October 16, 2000 did the accused sexually abuse you?
ATTY. LIGAS:
Objection, the information allege [sic] only one sexual intercourse.
COURT: Witness may answer.
A Two times, sir.
Q How do you know that the penis of the accused entered into your vagina at barrio Campo, Sto. Niño, Cagayan? A I felt the entering of his penis into my vagina.
Q How long did he sexually abuse you at Campo?
A For a long period, sir. [13]
The twin circumstances of minority and relationship under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances because they alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty. As special qualifying circumstances they must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information; xxx If the offender is merely a relation - not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim - the specific relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is "a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree." [26]The information in the instant case only mentioned appellant as AAA's uncle, without specifically stating that he is a relative within the third civil degree, either by affinity or consanguinity. Even granting that during trial it was proved that the relationship was within the third civil degree either of consanguinity or affinity, still such proof cannot be appreciated because appellant would thereby be denied of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Appellant cannot be charged with committing the crime of rape in its simple form and then be tried and convicted of rape in its qualified form.[27] Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly disregarded the qualifying circumstance of relationship.