G.R. NO. 174060 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding accused Lito Bejic y Antoni guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified incestuous rape, the court sentences him to death and orders him to pay his daughter civil indemnity in the sum of P75,000.00 and moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00. With costs. [16] The case was automatically elevated to this Court for review by reason of the death penalty imposed on appellant. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo, [17] the case was transferred and referred to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition. On 23 May 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the assailed RTC Decision. Aside from increasing the amount of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, it also ordered the appellant to pay AAA the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The decretal portion of the appellate court's decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Br. 13, in Crim. Case No. 1688-13 convicting herein appellant Lito Bejic y Antoni of the crime of qualified rape and sentencing him to death and ordering him to pay civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is increased to P75,000.00 and that Appellant is further ordered to pay the additional sum of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. [18] Before us, appellant assigns the following errors: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING AS INCREDIBLE THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION OF HAVING BEEN RAPED. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING AS IMPROBABLE FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO HAVE RAPED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT. III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [19] Anent the first issue, appellant contends that the testimony of AAA is not credible based on the following reasons: (1) the prosecution failed to present the medical certificate showing that AAA was indeed pregnant, or at the very least, that her hymen suffered lacerations indicating that the latter was no longer a virgin; (2) the prosecution failed to present the attending physician of AAA who could have testified, in the absence of the medical certificate, that he had indeed examined AAA and found the latter to be pregnant, or in lieu of the attending physician, the teacher or principal who allegedly accompanied AAA and BBB during the check-up; and (3) the prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the child delivered by AAA, or in lieu of such certificate, the testimony of the midwife or the doctor who assisted AAA in delivering the baby. [20] Appellant also asserts that the above-stated persons are vital witnesses to establish the fact of AAA's pregnancy. Further, the presentation of the said persons as witnesses, as well as the birth and medical certificates, are material to prove qualified rape. [21] We reject the foregoing asseveration