G.R. No. 137037-38 - People vs. Romero

The case involves Virgilio Romero, who was found guilty of two counts of rape against his step-granddaughter, Marilou Romero, by the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay.
The court sentenced him to death for each count and ordered him to pay a total of P100,000 in indemnity to the victim.
The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court due to the imposition of the death penalty.

Two separate informations for rape were filed against Romero on September 12, 1997, detailing incidents occurring in April 1996.
In Criminal Case No. 3598, the alleged rape occurred at around 10:00 AM, while in Criminal Case No. 3599, it was reported to have happened at 1:00 PM.
Marilou Romero, the victim, was under the care of Romero and his common-law wife, Flora, since she was one year old.

Rodolfo Sameniano, the barangay chairman, testified that Marilou reported the rapes to him in March 1997, stating that the first incident occurred when she was ten years old and the subsequent incidents when she was thirteen.
Dr. Arnel Borja conducted a medical examination of Marilou and found old hymenal lacerations, indicating prior sexual intercourse.
Marilou testified in detail about the rapes, describing how Romero threatened her and the physical pain she experienced.

Romero pleaded not guilty and presented an alibi, claiming he was engaged in business and could not have committed the rapes.
Flora Romero, his common-law wife, corroborated his alibi but contradicted him regarding the timeline of their move to Polangui.
The defense argued that the prosecution's witnesses were inconsistent, particularly regarding the timeline of events.

The court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible despite minor inconsistencies.
The Supreme Court emphasized that discrepancies in minor details do not undermine the overall credibility of witnesses, especially in cases of sexual assault.
The court noted that Marilou's delay in reporting the rapes was not unusual for a victim of such crimes, particularly given her age and the relationship with the accused.

The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established the elements of qualified rape, which requires the allegation of both the victim's minority and the relationship between the victim and the accused.
The court found that the information did not allege Marilou's minority, which is necessary for a conviction of qualified rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant's argument that the absence of allegations regarding the victim's minority and the nature of the relationship precluded a conv...continue reading