PEOPLE vs. EDGARDO ESTRADA G.R. No. 178318 January 15, 2010 Del Castillo, J.:

Facts: On November 19, 1997, two similarly-worded Informations were filed against appellant Edgardo Estrada charging him with two counts of Rape committed against his niece, 12-year old minor and is living in the house of his parents. On August 16, 2002, the trial court found the accused guilty of qualified rape on two counts and sentenced him to suffer the supreme penalty of death. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification finding the appellant guilty of simple rape. The Court of Appeals opined that mere allegation in the Information that the appellant was the victim’s uncle would not suffice to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. It must be categorically stated that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. Hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused should be convicted of qualified rape or simple rape.

Held: Applying the guiding principles that “a) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove; b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and c) the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense”, we affirm the Decision of the Court of Appeals finding herein appellant guilty of two counts of simple rape.

The rape incidents were committed in July 1997 hence the law applicable is Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. In the instant case, it was clearly established by the prosecution that on two occasions in July 1997, the victim was sexually abused by appellant through force and intimidation, against her will and without her consent. The qualifying circumstance of minority of the victim was likewise proven by the presentation of the latter’s Birth Certificate.

However, as regards the allegation in the Information that appellant is an uncle of the victim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the same did not sufficiently satisfy the requirements of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., it must be succinctly stated that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is immaterial that appellant admitted that the victim is his niece. In the same manner, it is irrelevant that “AAA” testified that appellant is her uncle.

In view of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals was correct in finding appellant guilty only of two counts of simple rape and in sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, and in ordering him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.