PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CESAR LARENA Y SARDONIDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Larena

The Case

People versus Larena is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Cesar Larena for five counts of rape committed against his own daughter, Dolores Larena, a girl barely thirteen years old. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a study in the weight of a child's testimony against a father's bare denial, and in how the courts treat a recantation later repudiated. Second, and more importantly for the Bar, it fixes the rule that the relationship between the offender and the victim in qualified rape is a special qualifying circumstance that must be alleged in the complaint or information. If it is not alleged, the death penalty cannot be imposed, no matter how clearly the evidence proves the relationship at trial.

Procedural History

Five criminal complaints for rape were filed against Cesar Larena before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga, Branch 16. After trial, the court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all five counts. For the first count, committed before the effectivity of Republic Act Number 7659, it imposed reclusion perpetua. For the four later counts, it imposed the death penalty in each, and ordered him to pay moral damages of 50,000 pesos in each case and exemplary damages of 25,000 pesos in each case, plus costs. Because the penalty of death was imposed, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Facts

Dolores Larena was born on April 3, 1981, the eldest of eight children of Cesar Larena, a tuba gatherer, and Teresa Casinas. The family lived in a small house in Cawit, Zamboanga City. Dolores was twelve years and eight months old when her father first raped her, on the morning of December 5, 1993, inside her parents' room while her mother was at the hospital watching over a sick infant. He embraced her, pushed her down, removed her underwear, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. She pleaded with him to stop, but he told her he would have sex with her and warned that if she told her mother, he would kill all of them. She saw blood coming from her vagina but kept silent out of fear.

Four more times he violated her. On January 20, 1994, and again on February 10, 1994, and on March 12, 1994, he entered the room where she slept with her sisters, at around midnight, and forced himself on her, each time repeating his threat to kill the family if she reported him. On April 19, 1994, at around four thirty in the morning, he woke her to boil water in the kitchen, pulled her onto his lap, and inserted his penis into her. Her mother came down and saw them. Dolores then revealed that her father had raped her five times.

On April 24, 1994, Dolores, accompanied by her mother and uncle, lodged a complaint at the police station, and the next day she was examined by Dr. Rodolfo Valmoria, whose findings showed deep healing lacerations on her hymen at several positions and concluded that she was no longer physically a virgin. On May 5, 1994, mother and daughter signed an affidavit of desistance, and the complaint then pending before the city prosecutor was dismissed. On May 18, 1994, Dolores executed an affidavit before the Commission on Human Rights reiterating her complaint and stating that she had been forced to sign the desistance because she was warned that no one would take care of her and her siblings. The five complaints were then filed in court on October 29, 1994. The accused denied everything, claimed his wife had a motive to fabricate the charges after petty quarrels, and said that on April 19 his daughter merely slipped and fell on his lap.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the accused's denial and in giving full credence to the testimony of his daughter and his wife.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty for the four later counts despite the absence of sufficient evidence of the blood relationship between the accused and the victim.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty for the four later counts even though the complaints did not allege the relationship between the accused and the victim.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659, provides:

The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent or victim.

This is the provision under which the trial court imposed death, and the Court construes it to require that the relationship be alleged in the information.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled against the accused. Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal, because that court saw and heard them. The accused's bare denial was uncorroborated, while the testimony of Dolores and her mother was positive, credible, and convincing. Denial, like alibi, is a weak defense, and it becomes weaker against positive identification. The Court found it hard to believe that a mother would goad her daughter into concocting five counts of incestuous rape over a quarrel about a gas lamp and a thirty peso bet. The minor inconsistencies about the time of the first rape did not destroy the victim's credibility, and the medical findings of multiple healed and unhealed lacerations confirmed repeated sexual intercourse.

On the second issue, the Court also ruled against the accused. His belated claim that Dolores might not be his daughter was an afterthought, since he had consistently declared throughout the trial that she was his daughter and that the blood in her veins was his own.

On the third issue, the Court ruled in favor of the accused. The seven attendant circumstances under Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659 are special qualifying circumstances. Unlike generic aggravating circumstances, which may be appreciated even if not alleged, they cannot be considered unless alleged in the information, even if proved. The four complaints for which death was imposed failed to allege the relationship. The Court quoted its ruling in People versus Ramos:

A rape by a father of his minor daughter is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death and not by reclusion perpetua to death, as the lower court erroneously believed.

The Court explained that a qualifying circumstance not only gives the crime its proper and exclusive name but also imposes on the offender no other penalty than that specially prescribed by law, while an aggravating circumstance affects only the period of the penalty and does not raise it to a higher degree. The trial court therefore erred in holding that the relationship need not be alleged because it does not change the name of the crime.

Doctrine

The seven attendant circumstances under Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659, including the victim's minority coupled with the offender's being a parent, are special qualifying circumstances. They must be alleged in the complaint or information; if they are not alleged, they cannot be appreciated even if proved at trial, and the death penalty cannot be imposed. A qualifying circumstance raises the penalty by degrees and gives the crime its proper name, while a generic aggravating circumstance affects only the period of the penalty. Denial is a weak defense against positive identification, and the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great weight on appeal.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction on all five counts but reduced the penalty for the four later counts from death to reclusion perpetua, because the relationship was not alleged in the complaints.

Remember This

Memorize this line: relationship in qualified rape is a special qualifying circumstance that must be alleged in the information, or the death penalty cannot be imposed. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between qualifying and aggravating circumstances, and the requirement that every element elevating the penalty be pleaded with specificity.