G.R. No. L-66696 - Arsenal vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

On February 6, 1995, the victim, Aimzyl Tria—a five-year-old girl—was left alone in her home at 5146 P. Dandan Street, La Huerta, ParaAaque, Metro Manila, watching cartoons.
The accused-appellant, Renato Caparanga Jose, arrived at the scene and directed the child to go upstairs to the master bedroom.
The accused undressed the victim, leaving her in only a “sando” and shorts, and proceeded to molest her.
He first inserted his middle and index fingers into her private part and repeatedly applied his tongue, causing her pain.
After her futile attempts to resist due to his superior strength, he inserted his penis into her private part on at least two separate occasions.
A second instance of rape occurred when the victim was taking a bath at ground level, where the accused removed his shorts, had her sit on his lap, and again inserted his penis while she was partially unclothed.
The physical acts were described in detail, including observations of “something like sputum” emerging from his penis after insertion.

A Certificate of Live Birth was presented at trial to establish the victim’s age.
A gram staining examination of the vaginal smear specimen taken from the victim showed positive results for both intracellular and extracellular gram-negative diplococci—indicative of gonorrhea.
The presence of sperm cells in the specimen further attested to the sexual abuse.
Medical examinations conducted by Dr. Priscilla Buenavista in Baclaran and later by NBI medico-legal officer, Dr. Valentin T. Bernales, provided corroborative findings (e.g., a healing wound at the root of the hymen, congested vestibular mucosa).

The victim was able to testify, despite her tender age, as she identified the accused-appellant as her molester.
The victim’s mother, Agapita Tria, noticed unusual mucus on her daughter’s underwear on February 7 and subsequent days, prompting her to question the child.
Upon persistent inquiry, the child explained that “Kuya Nat” had molested her, identifying the actions that involved both manual stimulation and penetration.
The mother executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay and promptly sought the assistance of the ParaAaque Police, who facilitated the referral of the case to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

On February 21, 1995, an Information was filed charging the accused with the crime of statutory rape (rape of a minor).
At arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.
During trial, the prosecution presented medical evidence, witness testimonies, and other corroborative facts which established that the accused had molested the child on multiple occasions.
Judge Amelita G. Tolentino of the Regional Trial Court convicted Renato Caparanga Jose, sentencing him to death based on the crime’s affirmation as rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659).
The trial court also ordered the accused to indemnify the victim with moral damages amounting to P50,000.00.

On appeal, the accused anchored his argument on the claim that the evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
His defense focused on the possibility that the five-year-old victim might have mistakenly identified her “Kuya Nat” as the perpetrator.
He contended that her limited exposure to adult males could have led to misidentification, noting that no alternative witness (such as an alleged confidante) was presented to substantiate this claim.
The defense also argued that the testimony of the victim’s mother was motivated by personal animosity arising from a prior personal relationship with the accused.

Whether a five-year-old victim’s identification of the accused-appellant is sufficiently reliable.
Whether the tender age of the child should cast doubt upon her ability to correctly identify her molester.

Whether the evidence conclusively establishes that Renato Caparanga Jose was the one who committed the acts of sexual abuse.
Whether the possibility of mistaken identity, as argued by the defense, has any merit.

Whether the death penalty is justified given the attendant circumstance of the victim being below seven years of age.
The applicability of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 in imposing the supreme penalty in this case.

Whether the lower court correctly classified the P50,000.00 awarded to the victim as moral damages.
The distinction between civil indemnity and moral damages, and whether the modification to P75,000.00 for indemnity and P50,000.00 for moral damages is proper.