MENDOZA, J.: Chiefx

Before us for automatic review is the decision1 [Per Judge Sancho Dames II.] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Daet, Camarines Norte, finding accused-appellant Felixberto Fraga y Baylon, alias Bentot, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of rape, two of which were committed against Lenny Macaro and another two committed against Lenny’s sister Jenny Macaro, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death in each of the four cases and to indemnify the victims in the amount of P100,000.00 each.

Four informations for rape were filed against accused-appellant.

In Criminal Case No. 8899, the information alleged:

In Criminal Case No. 8900, it was alleged:

In Criminal Case No. 8945, the information charged:

In Criminal Case No. 8946, the information averred:

The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. Upon being arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The prosecution presented evidence to the following effect:

Alex, Julie, and complainants Lenny and Jenny, all surnamed Macaro, are the children of Ambrocio and Emma Macaro. The family resided in Awitan, Daet, Camarines Norte. After the death of Ambrocio Macaro in 1987, Emma and her two daughters, Lenny, then five years old, and Jenny, then three years old, lived with Emma’s mother in Sindikado, Barangay Culapnit, Paracale, Camarines Norte. There, Emma met accused-appellant, and the two thereafter lived as husband and wife. The couple stayed in accused-appellant’s house in Capacuan, Paracale, Camarines Norte. Lenny and Jenny stayed with them. Emma later had three other children by accused-appellant, namely, Renerose, Benjie, and Renalyn.2 [TSN (Lenny Macaro), pp. 4-7, March 4, 1997.] Esmmis

At about 9 a.m. of September 24, 1995, while Lenny, then 12 years old, was in the bedroom of their house, taking care of accused-appellant’s month-old child Renalyn, accused-appellant arrived and closed the door behind him. At first, he played with his child, but after a while he started touching Lenny’s nipples, causing the latter to nearly drop the child to the floor. Accused-appellant then took out a knife and, pointing it at Lenny, removed the latter’s shorts and panties. Accused-appellant started kissing Lenny on different parts of her body while threatening to kill her if she resisted. While standing, he grabbed her by the waist and lifted her towards him and then inserted his middle finger into her vagina. Afterwards, he forced his penis into her vagina. Lenny writhed in pain as accused-appellant performed the sexual act. She begged the latter to stop, telling him "That’s enough!", but accused-appellant finally stopped only after satisfying himself. Lenny noticed something coming out of his penis. She also saw blood on his organ as he wiped it. She noticed her vagina bleeding. Accused-appellant told her to take a bath. She did and then went to the house of her uncle, Kuya Bebec. But she did not tell her uncle her misfortune because of accused-appellant’s threat.3 [Id., pp. 7-18; Affidavit of Lenny V. Macaro dated October 17, 1996 (Exh. A), Records, pp. 6-7a.]

On September 9, 1996, Lenny was raped a second time by accused-appellant. She was alone in the house as her mother, had gone to Daet, while her younger sister Jenny was playing in a neighbor’s house. At about 4 p.m., accused-appellant arrived and, finding Lenny alone, closed the door behind him. Through threat and intimidation, he made her lie down on the floor. He held her hand and started kissing her in different parts of her body. Lenny pleaded with accused-appellant not to carry out his designs, but the latter ignored her. He spread her legs, licked her private parts, placed himself on top of her, and succeeded in ravishing her once more. Lenny then saw him wiping his organ with his clothes before he put them on and left to gather firewood. As before, Lenny did not report the incident to anyone because of fear of accused-appellant. She went to Manila and applied for work as a househelp, but she returned home after a week.4 [TSN, pp. 2-16, March 5, 1997; Affidavit of Lenny V. Macaro dated Oct. 17, 1996, supra.]

Jenny, Lenny’s younger sister, was not spared from accused-appellant’s designs. At 12 noon of September 27, 1996, accused-appellant entered the bedroom where Jenny was babysitting her half-sister Renalyn. Through force and intimidation, accused-appellant was able to have sexual intercourse with Jenny. He gagged Jenny with a handkerchief, made her lie down, and threatened to kill her if she did not yield to his desire. Lenny arrived as accused-appellant was abusing her sister. She shouted, "Tama na po yan tiyo, batang-bata pa yan!" But accused-appellant did not stop. He threatened to kill Lenny, to which Lenny retorted "Tiyo, papatayin kita!" It was only after satisfying himself that accused-appellant finally stopped. Jenny said she saw a whitish substance coming out of accused-appellant’s organ. Accused-appellant then slapped Lenny. He later put on his clothes and left. Jenny was bleeding in the vagina. Because of accused-appellant’s threats to kill all of them, Lenny and Jenny did not report the incident to their mother.5 [TSN (Jenny Macaro), pp. 2-18, March 11, 1997; TSN (Lenny Macaro), pp. 16-24, March 5, 1997; Affidavit of Jenny Macaro dated Oct. 17, 1996 (Exh. D)] Esmsc

Finally, at about 4 p.m. of September 29, 1996, while Jenny was in the bedroom babysitting, accused-appellant arrived. Lenny was outside the house washing clothes. Earlier, their mother had left to sell peanuts and other cooked food. Taking advantage of the situation, accused-appellant forced Jenny to have sexual intercourse with him. Jenny did not report the matter to Lenny nor to her mother for fear that accused-appellant would carry out his threats to kill them.6 [TSN (Jenny Macaro), pp. 19-24, March 11, 1997.]

Lenny and Jenny could not keep their silence for long. They related to Rosalie Y. Macaro, wife of their brother Alex, that they had been raped by accused-appellant. Rosalie, therefore, sought police assistance. The sisters gave sworn statements (Exhs. A and D), on the basis of which complaints for rape (Exhs. B and F) were filed against accused-appellant before the Municipal Trial Court of Paracale, Camarines Norte.7 [TSN (Lenny Macaro), pp. 27-33, March 5, 1997.]

On October 18, 1996, Dr. Marcelito B. Abas, medico-legal officer of Regional Health Office No. 5 of the Camarines Norte Provincial Hospital in Daet, Camarines Norte, conducted medical examinations on Lenny and Jenny. His reports (Exhs. C and E) contained the following results:

He explained that the superficial healed hymenal lacerations were caused by the penetration of a turgid penis.8 [TSN, pp. 2-10, April 7, 1997.] Esmso

Sometime in November, 1996, Lenny and Jenny were taken to the Lingap Center for Children of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Social Welfare Officer II Corazon A. Pitero recommended that they undergo psycho-social rehabilitation, and she facilitated their transfer to the Center for Girls in Sorsogon9 [TSN (Corazon A. Pitero), pp. 29-34, March 21, 1997.] (Exhs. H and I).10 [Records, pp. 42-44; 46-48.]

Accused-appellant denied the charges and interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed that Lenny lived in the house of her grandmother, Lita Villeno, at Sindikado, Barangay Culapnit, Paracale, Camarines Norte. The only time that Lenny stayed in his house at Capacuan was after she had been sent away by her employer in Manila where she worked as a househelp for about a week. According to accused-appellant, sometime in August 24, 1996, he had an altercation with Alex Macaro, elder brother of Lenny and Jenny, during a town fiesta because he and his common-law wife sold hogs belonging to Alex’s wife Rosalie without the latter’s consent. As to the two alleged incidents of rape against Lenny, he claimed that at about 9 a.m. of September 24, 1995, Lenny was in her grandmother’s house in Sindikado, while he was working in the mines together with his wife’s brothers. On the other hand, at 4 p.m. of September 9, 1996, when the second incident of rape allegedly took place, accused-appellant claimed that Lenny was at the town of Malacbang. As to the two other alleged incidents of rape committed against Jenny, accused-appellant said that at about 12 noon of September 27, 1996, he was in the house of his parents-in-law in Barangay Culapnit, Tugos, Paracale, Camarines Norte, while at 4 p.m. of September 29, 1996, he was at home in Capacuan feeding his hogs, while Jenny was in school.11 [TSN, pp. 2-13, April 14, 1997; TSN, pp. 2-9, May 8, 1997.]

Emma Macaro, mother of complainants Lenny and Jenny, testified in favor of the accused-appellant. She declared that Lenny and Jenny were born on November 21, 1982 and October 10, 1984, respectively. She corroborated accused-appellant’s claim that Lenny was staying with the latter’s grandmother from September 24, 1995 until July 27, 1996 and then lived with them in Capacuan up to August 1, 1996. She further stated that on the two occasions when Jenny was allegedly raped, the latter attended classes and arrived home only at around 5 p.m. She also corroborated accused-appellant’s claim that the latter had an altercation with her son Alex. She maintained that the incidents of rapes could not have happened as she was always at home with her children.12 [TSN, pp. 26-40, May 8, 1997.]

On January 5, 1998, the trial court rendered a decision finding accused-appellant guilty of four counts of rape. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

Accused-appellant seeks the reversal of his conviction alleging errors in the trial court’s decision.

First. Accused-appellant avers that the evidence for the prosecution does not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of four counts of rape.

This contention will not bear analysis. Our review of complainants’ testimonies supports the conclusion of the trial court that their testimonies deserve full faith and credence. As to the first incident of rape which happened at about 9 a.m. of September 24, 1995, Lenny testified:

As to the second incident of rape which took place at about 4 p.m. of September 9, 1996, Lenny declared:

As to the third incident of rape which happened at about 12 noon of September 27, 1996, Jenny testified:

With regard to the last incident of rape at about 4 p.m. of September 29, 1996, Jenny said:

The testimonies of child victims of rape are generally accorded full weight and credit. When a child victim says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.18 [People v. Emocling, 297 SCRA 214 (1998)] Indeed, in these cases, Lenny and Jenny had no motive to testify falsely that they had been raped by accused-appellant. As we have said in numerous cases, a young girl’s revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give the details of her ignominy, cannot just be dismissed as a mere concoction.19 [E.g., People v. Pambid, G.R. No. 124453, March 15, 2000; People v. Atienza, G.R. No. 131820, Feb. 29, 2000; People v. Molas, 286 SCRA 684 (1998)] Jenny’s innocence revealed itself in her reference to the whitish substance she saw on her private parts and shorts as "sipon." She and Lenny were unshaken by the gruelling cross-examination to which they were subjected.

Indeed, it defies comprehension why the complainants would concoct a story of defloration and allow an examination on their private parts if they had base motives in charging accused-appellant with a heinous offense. Their courage is all the more commendable because their own mother testified in favor of accused-appellant. If their stories had been contrived, they would not have been so composed and consistent throughout their entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy interrogation.20 [People v. Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998)] Their testimonies were corroborated by medical findings of hymenal lacerations. Scslx

In contrast, the bare denials of accused-appellant were unsubstantiated by any credible evidence. Denial is a negative, self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence.21 [People v. Acala, G.R. Nos. 127023-25, May 19, 1999.]

Second. Accused-appellant contends that there were no rapes because the prosecution not only failed to establish that he employed force, violence and intimidation in having sexual intercourse with complainants Lenny and Jenny but that it also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse took place without their consent.

This contention is also without merit. Accused-appellant changed his theory, from denial and alibi to the absence of force and intimidation employed by him upon the complainants and the lack of resistance on their part, apparently after realizing the futility of his earlier defense.22 [People v. Pambid, supra; People v. Balgos, G.R. No. 126115, Jan. 26, 2000; People v. Trimor, 243 SCRA 129 (1995); People v. Amamangpang, 291 SCRA 638 (1998)]

Moreover, this argument of accused-appellant has no bearing with regard to Jenny as she was under 12 years of age when the rapes against her were committed. When the victim is below 12 years of age, the consent, or lack of it, by the girl to have carnal embrace is irrelevant.23 [People v. Henson, 270 SCRA 634 (1997)]

In any case, complainants Lenny and Jenny categorically testified that accused-appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of them by force and intimidation. On the first occasion of rape, accused-appellant threatened Lenny with a knife and succeeded in making her submit to his will. As to the second incident of rape, Lenny fought to free herself from accused-appellant’s hold, but the latter proved to be too strong for her. As to the third incident of rape, Jenny was gagged. As to the last occasion of rape, Jenny was rendered defenseless. The incidents happened when complainants’ mother was away.

The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault.24 [People v. Maglente, G.R. Nos. 124559-66, April 30, 1999.] It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so.25 [People v.Napiot, G.R. No. 119956, Aug. 5, 1999.] Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.26 [People v. Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29, 1999; People v. Cantos, G.R. No. 129298, April 14, 1999.] Slx

In these cases, accused-appellant started cohabiting with complainants’ mother in 1987. As the common-law husband of their mother, he gained such moral ascendancy over complainants that any more resistance than had been shown by complainants cannot reasonably be expected.

Third. Accused-appellant contends that the reactions of Lenny after the alleged rape were unnatural for a woman who had just been the victim of sexual assault. Accused-appellant is referring to the fact that after the first incident, Lenny took a bath and proceeded to the house of her uncle (Kuya Bebec), while after the second incident, she dressed up and continued with the chore she was then doing, folding clothes. He further argues that if Lenny was really abused, then she should not have returned to his (accused-appellant’s) house.

It was natural for Lenny to wash herself after she had been defiled. That after she had been abused she returned to her household work or otherwise conducted herself as though nothing untoward had happened to her was due to the overhanging threat on her life that if she reported the rape to others, she would be killed. Moreover, the fact that accused-appellant, who is the common-law husband of her mother and whom she addressed as "Tiyo," exercised moral ascendancy over her and her siblings explains why Lenny behaved as though no wrong had been done to her.

Lenny was also concerned with her younger sister Jenny who had earlier told her that accused-appellant had molested her. In her affidavit (Exh. A), Lenny stated: "Kaya po ako nagpa-Maynila sa dahilan na hindi ko na kaya ang ginagawa sa akin nitong aking tiyo at gusto kong magpakamatay sa dahilan na bago ako magpa-Maynila ay nalaman ko na ang aking kapatid na bunso na si Jenny Macaro ay nagsumbong na rin sa akin na pinakikialaman ito ni Tiyo at pinaghihipo na raw ang puke niya at nakikiusap sa akin itong kapatid ko na huwag siyang iwanan at natatakot siya at sasama sa akin at ng malaman ito ni Tiyo ay hindi ito pinasasama sa akin kaya ako lang nakaluwas ng Maynila at muli po akong bumalik sa bahay galing sa Maynila noong gabi na petsa-25 ng Septembre."27 [Records, p. 7.] At about 12 noon of September 27, 1996, while she was outside the house washing clothes, she had a foreboding that something wrong was happening to Jenny. When she went inside the house, she saw accused-appellant naked on top of Jenny and having sexual intercourse with her. Mesm

Accused-appellant claims that complainant Jenny incurred some inconsistencies in her testimony. At one time, during cross-examination,28 [TSN, pp. 40-41, March 11, 1997.] Jenny said accused-appellant merely poked his finger into her vagina but on re-direct examination,29 [Id., pp. 41-42.] she claimed that accused-appellant first inserted his finger and later, his penis into her vagina. Likewise, her statement during cross-examination,30 [Id., pp. 32-33.] that she was in school on September 27, 1996, was corrected on re-direct examination,31 [Id., pp. 42-43.] wherein she stated that she was at home alone with accused-appellant when the rape occurred at noontime.

Suffice it to state that these are inconsequential lapses that can be expected of a young girl in view of the harrowing experience she is called upon to recall. Such minor inconsistencies, far from detracting from the veracity of her testimony, in fact tend to bolster it.32 [People v. Padilla, 301 SCRA 265 (1999)]

Fourth. Considering accused-appellant as the stepfather of complainants Lenny and Jenny, the trial court imposed on him the death penalty for each count of rape.

This is error. Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by §11 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a victim under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. This provision requires the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. It is thus a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty, distinguished from a generic aggravating circumstance which affects only the period of the penalty. As such, it should be alleged in the information as a requirement of the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.33 [People v. Lim, supra; People v. Manggasin, G.R. Nos. 130599-600, April 21, 1999; People v. Ilao, 296 SCRA 658 (1998); People v. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559 (1998); People v. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463 (1997)] Moreover, such a special qualifying circumstance must not only be alleged in the information but must also be proved with certainty; otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.34 [People v. Panique, G.R. No. 125763, Oct. 13, 1999; People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, Sept. 29, 1999; People v. Acala, G.R. Nos. 127023-25, May 19, 1999; People v. Maglente, supra; People v. Manggasin, supra; People v. Cantos, supra.]

In these cases, the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 8899-8900 alleged that accused-appellant, "who is the stepfather of the private offended party" by "force, violence and intimidation" succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the latter when she was then 14 and 13 years old, respectively. On the other hand, the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 8945-8946 alleged that accused-appellant, "who . . . is the stepfather of victim Jenny Macaro" succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the latter, who was a girl below 12 years old. As already noted, contrary to these allegations, accused-appellant is not really the stepfather of complainants Lenny and Jenny because accused-appellant and complainants’ mother were not legally married but were merely living in common-law relation. In fact, Lenny35 [TSN, pp. 4-7, March 4, 1997; TSN, pp. 3-4, 14, 27, 38, March 5, 1997; TSN, p. 6, March 10, 1997.] and Jenny36 [TSN, pp. 5, 17-19, March 11, 1997.] interchangeably referred to accused-appellant as their stepfather, "kabit," "live-in partner ng Mama ko," "tiyo," and "tiyuhin." Complainants’ sister-in-law, Rosalie Macaro, also testified that her "mother-in-law is not legally married to accused-appellant."37 [TSN, p. 6, March 21, 1997.] Accused-appellant likewise said on direct38 [TSN, p. 3, April 14, 1997; TSN, p. 3, May 8, 1997.] and cross-examination39 [TSN, p. 9, May 8, 1997.] that he was not legally married to the mother of the complainants, and he referred to her as his live-in partner. This was confirmed by Emma Macaro,40 [Id., pp. 33-34.] mother of the complainants. Although the rape of a person under eighteen (18) years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant in these cases because this relationship was not what was alleged in the informations. What was alleged was that he is the stepfather of the complainants. Calrky

Neither can accused-appellant be meted the death penalty in Criminal Case No. 8900 where he committed the rape after threatening the victim, Lenny Macaro, with a knife. Under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, simple rape is punishable by "reclusion perpetua." When the rape is committed "with the use of a deadly weapon," i.e., when a deadly weapon is used to make the victim submit to the will of the offender, the penalty is "reclusion perpetua to death." This circumstance must however be alleged in the information because it is also in the nature of a qualifying circumstance which increases the range of the penalty to include death. In Criminal Case No. 8900, while complainant Lenny testified that accused-appellant raped her after threatening her with a knife, the "use of a deadly weapon" in the commission of the crime was not alleged in the information. Therefore, even if the same was proved, it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. The same can only be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance which, in this case, cannot affect the penalty to be imposed, i.e., reclusion perpetua. Accordingly, the accused-appellant should be sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the four counts of rape.

With regard to the civil indemnity, the trial court correctly awarded P100,000.00 each to complainants Lenny and Jenny Macaro or P50,000.00 for each count of rape.41 [People v. Panique, supra; People v. Lim, supra; People v. Acala, supra; People v. Maglente, supra; People v. Manggasin, supra.] In addition, however, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages should also be granted in each case. We have held that this award is to be given even if there is neither allegation nor evidence of the trauma constituting the basis of such award as the same is necessarily included in a charge of rape.42 [People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 (1998) cited in People v. Maglente, supra; People v. Alba, G.R. Nos. 131858-59, April 14, 1999.]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Daet, Camarines Norte, in Criminal Case Nos. 8899, 8900, 8945 and 8946 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

(1) In Criminal Case Nos. 8899-8900, accused-appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and is hereby ordered to pay the offended party, Lenny Macaro, the amount of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity, for each count of rape or the total amount of P100,000.00 and the additional amount of P50,000, as moral damages, for each count of rape or the total amount of P100,000.00; and

(2) In Criminal Case Nos. 8945-8946, accused-appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and is hereby ordered to pay the offended party, Jenny Macaro, the amount of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity, for each count of rape or the total amount of P100,000.00 and the additional amount of P50,000.00, as moral damages, for each count of rape or the total amount of P100,000.00.

SO ORDERED. Kycalr

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno Kapunan, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Vitug, J., on official business.