PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE) VS.

BOBBY GALIGAO (ACCUSED APPELLANT)
GR NO. 140961-63 JANUARY 14, 2003 J. YNARES-SANTIAGO 1. Galigao was charged with rape in three informations. He was accused of raping her three daughters. Daisy (13), Dorivie (10) and Deborrah (8). 2. Upon arraignment, Galigao pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, the three cases were jointly tried 3. RTC of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and was sentenced as follows: qualifying circumstance appreciated (under 18 + accused was the parent of the victims); 3 death penalties + accessory penalties (Php75K as civil indemnity, Php50K as moral damages and Php50K as exemplary damages for EACH daughter 4. Hence this automatic review. detailed narrative of the offense: o Dorivie: was being raped since she was 9 yrs old. Saw her father did the same to her other 2 sisters o Deborrah: claimed as well that she was raped, corroborated Dorivie’s testimony that they were all raped. o Galigao: admitted of having raped Daisy (eldest) but only to get back at her mother who cheated on him. He denied having raped the younger 2. Claimed that he didn’t file a case for the alleged infidelity of his wife since no one was willing to help him because his brother-in-law is a policeman. But upon cross examination, he admitted having raped the 3 girls. o Daisy: was presented as defense witness and intended to forgive her father, she turned hostile after learning that she was raped out of revenge. Defense tried to ask for the total withdrawal of the testimony of daisy but the court didn’t allow it. Wasn’t cross examined.

ISSUE + Reasoning 1. WON death penalty is warranted. (court compared the testimony of the 2 parties, said that the clear and categorical declarations of the 3 girls greatly contrasted the testimony of the father who claimed that he is insane, which naturally failed. Decided not to disturb the findings of the trial court, that the testimonies of the 3 girls were more credible than that of the father’s) o NO. though his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the penalty of three death penalties against him was excessive and unwarranted.  In imposing the death penalty, TC erroneously cited Art. 266-A and 266-B of the RPC as amended by RA 8353. The law applicable at the time the offense was committed was RA 7659 (amending Art. 355 (after RA 8353 this provision became 266-a)) which states that death penalty should be imposed if the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.  But this rule is not automatically applied. The SC has the guided discretion in the imposition of capital punishment of Art. 47 of the RPC recognizes that the

o

justices are not only voting on the issue of guilt but also on the question of the imposition of the death penalty itself. There may be existing circumstances that warrant the imposition of RP instead of death, like the limited schooling of the accused, or his failure to recognize the gravity of the offense. Lesson time: conviction re: rape of daisy should be struck down. Although the information of her case speaks of a criminal complaint , none was ever presented. SPO4 Calderon (daisy’s uncle) even testified that Daisy didn’t want to pursue the case since she didn’t want to be the subject of gossip in the school  The trial court convicted Galigao under the provisions of RA 8353 but the crimes were committed in 1996 (8353 took effect 1997). It cannot be applied retroactively. Art. 355 should then be applied which required a criminal complaint for rape. There was none in Daisy’s case. Trial court erred in convicting Galigao of rape re: Daisy’s case.

Held: Dorivie and Deborrah’s case affirmed but modified. Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua (instead of death penalty), Php50K as indemnity ex-delicto, Php50k moral damage and Php25k as exemplary damages. As for Daisy’s case- Acquitted.