G.R. No. 230975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. RICO NIEBRES Y REGINALDO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. [14] It held that the prosecution was able to present testimonial and documentary evidence to support AAA's claim of rape against Niebres. Meanwhile, Niebres's unsubstantiated defenses of denial and alibi failed to create reasonable doubt in light of the positive and categorical testimony and identification of AAA. [15] Furthermore, the RTC did not appreciate the qualifying circumstance of relationship by affinity between Niebres and AAA even if it was proven in court, given that the same was not alleged in the Information. [16] Aggrieved, Niebres appealed [17] to the CA. The CA Ruling In a the Decision [18] dated August 17, 2015, the CA upgraded Niebres's conviction to that of Qualified Rape, finding Niebres not eligible for parole and ordering him to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from date of finality of judgment until fully paid. [19] The CA upheld the RTC's finding of rape, further noting that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA were too minor and inconsequential to acquit Niebres of the crime charged. Further, it was highly improbable for AAA to fabricate the charges against Niebres, considering that a traumatizing experience like rape would definitely leave a lasting impression on her given her mental condition. [20] However, the CA ruled that Niebres should be convicted for Qualified Rape, considering that: ( a ) the state of mental retardation of AAA was competently established on account of the testimony and psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Laguidao on AAA; and ( b ) Niebres failed to dispute AAA's mental retardation during trial. Accordingly, the CA deemed it proper to hold Niebres guilty of Qualified Rape. [21] Unyielding, Niebres filed the present appeal. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Niebres's conviction for the crime of Rape should be upheld. The Court's Ruling The appeal is denied. At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. [22] As will be explained hereunder, the Court deems it proper to modify Niebres's conviction for the crime of Qualified Rape to Simple Rape. Here, a plain reading of the Information reveals that Niebres was charged of the crime of Q