Case Digest (G.R. No. 142556)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Jesus Perez y Sebunga, G.R. No. 142556, February 05, 2003, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. This is an automatic review of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 69) Decision dated October 26, 1999 (Criminal Case No. RTC-2116-I) convicting and sentencing appellant Jesus S. Perez to death for rape of a minor.On January 22, 1997 the Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information charging appellant with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, alleging that on January 17, 1997 appellant, with lewd design and by coercion, had sexual intercourse with AAA, a six-year-old child. Upon arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty; counsel changes followed and the trial court appointed new counsel de officio.
At pre-trial the parties stipulated to several facts: the identity of the accused; that he was in the vicinity at the time; that AAA was born on May 23, 1990 (birth certificate marked Exhibit A); and that a medico-legal examination was done (medico-legal certificate marked Exhibit B). The prosecution presented witnesses including AAA, her parents, a neighbor (Virginia Giron) and Dr. Editha D. Divino. The defense offered the testimony of appellant’s employer, Bartolome Tolentino, which was admitted by offer and dispensed with in open court.
The prosecution’s evidence was that on the noon of January 17, 1997 appellant, introducing himself as “Johnny,” accosted the child, strangled and struck her, then penetrated her with his penis; a dog barked during the act, the victim bled profusely and ran to Giron’s house shouting “ni-rape ako,” and her parents took her to the hospital where Dr. Divino documented hymenal lacerations and a four-centimeter median vaginal floor laceration requiring repair. Neighbors identified “Johnny” as a fishpond worker for Bartolome Tolentino; police arrested appellant at the fishpond and AAA later identified him at the police station and in open court. Appellant denied the crime, testified to being at work that day (using the nickname “Jessie”) and asserted irregularities in identification procedures.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Was the in-court identification of appellant by the child-victim irregular or unreliable so as to render the conviction unsafe?
- Was the victim’s minority (below seven years old) established beyond reasonable doubt so as to make the death penalty a proper penalty?
- Was appellant’s conviction for qualified rape and the imposition of the death pen...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)