Case Digest (G.R. No. 136257)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Oscar Ybanez, G.R. No. 136257, February 14, 2001, the Supreme Court En Banc, Melo, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is The People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Oscar Ybanez (also named Oscar Ybanez y Dagulpo in the complaint). The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review following a death sentence imposed by the trial court.The criminal action began with a complaint filed by the victim, Erika Dialogo, charging that on or about January 1, 1995 in Taytay, Rizal, accused-appellant, with lewd designs and by force, violence and intimidation, willfully and unlawfully had sexual intercourse with Erika, a ten-year-old minor, contrary to law. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial was conducted before Branch 71, Regional Trial Court of the Fourth Judicial Region, Antipolo, Rizal (Criminal Case No. 94-11878).
At trial the prosecution relied chiefly on the testimony of Erika Dialogo, her uncle Celestino Dialogo, and Dr. Jesusa Vergara of the PNP Crime Laboratory Services. Erika testified that her mother’s common-law husband (accused-appellant) lured her into a nearby forest, forced her onto a wooden bed, removed her clothing, inserted a finger into her vagina, and then lay on top of her; she resisted and tried to escape but was grabbed. Erika initially kept silent, later confided to relatives, and was brought to Camp Crame. Dr. Vergara’s medico-legal exam showed that the external vaginal orifice admitted the examiner’s smallest finger with shallow healed lacerations and that Erika was in a non-virgin state.
The defense presented the accused-appellant as its sole witness. He denied rape, claiming only to have given Erika a fatherly kiss and suggesting that Celestino had a motive to frame him because Celestino had been asked to move out of the household. The trial court discredited the accused’s denial, accepted the victim’s testimony as straightforward and consistent with the medical findings, and on September 25, 1997 found the accused guilty of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and sentenced him to death.
On automatic review the Supreme Court affirmed guilt but modified the penalty. The Court agreed that Erika’s testimony, supported by medical evidence, established rape beyond reasonable doubt, but held that the death penalty could not be imposed because the qualifying circumstance (the victim’s relationship to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Must the special qualifying circumstances (victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender) that warrant the death penalty be both alleged in the information and proved at trial before the death penalty may be imposed?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed rape against Erika Dialogo?
- Are additional damages (moral and exemplary) recoverable by the victi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)