Case Digest (G.R. No. 122097)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Fermin Igat, G.R. No. 122097, June 22, 1998, Supreme Court First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Fermin Igat; the offended party is his daughter Gresilda Igat. The trial court decision was penned by Judge Pepito T. Ta-ay of the Regional Trial Court, Branch VII, Kalibo, Aklan.On the evening of 10 December 1990, after a domestic quarrel in the nipa house where several family members slept, 14‑year‑old Gresilda was awakened and assaulted in her room by someone who identified himself in a familiar voice as her father, Fermin. She testified that her father threatened to kill her if she cried out, covered her mouth, groped her breasts and sexual organ, removed her panties and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, producing bleeding and severe pain. Gresilda did not report the incident immediately and attended school the next day; she later alleged a second rape by her father on 12 January 1991.
Late April 1991 Gresilda confided in her sister while en route to Manila; by May 1991 she sought a medico‑legal examination. On 8 May 1991 Dr. Simeon A. Arce, Jr. examined her; an Information was filed on 19 June 1991 (Crim. Case No. 3368). At trial the prosecution presented Gresilda, her siblings Teresa and Richard, and Dr. Arce; the defense put forward witnesses including family members and neighbors who denied the events. The RTC convicted Fermin Igat of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered P50,000 indemnity to the victim.
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals; because of the penalty involved the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court. In this petition before the Court, appellant contended that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence and a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Fermin Igat committed rape against his daughter Gresilda?
- Should Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code (pre‑amendment) be applied to limit the duration of the reclusion perpetua imposed on appellant to twenty (20) years and one (1) da...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)