For automatic review is the Decision of Branch 78, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,1 [Penned by Hon. Percival Mandap Lopez, Branch 78, Regional Trial Court in Quezon City.] finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and sentencing him as follows:2 [Rollo, p. 19.]

On August 16, 1995, Esmeralda Balacano, assisted by her mother, Ma. Luisa M. Balacano, lodged subject complaint3 [Records, p. 1.] for rape before Assistant City Prosecutor Wilfredo L. Maynigo, stating thus:

Upon arraignment on September 20, 1995 with the assistance of Atty. Eranio G. Cedillo, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

Evidence for the People consisted of the testimonies of the victim, Esmeralda Balacano, and Dr. Jesusa Nieves-Vergara, the medico legal officer who examined her.

Esmeralda Balacano, fourteen years of age, testified that she was raped five (5) times by the appellant, who is her step-father, but she could not anymore remember the dates she was ravished except that which happened on August 9, 1995. She also narrated that on the said date, at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening, she and her sister Peñafrancia were in their residence at No. 121 Commonwealth Avenue, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City, when the appellant entered the room, asked her sister to go out, and ordered her (victim) to undress. Sensing that appellant was drunk and afraid of his anger, she complied. Appellant then inserted his penis into her vagina. After satisfying his lust, he slept. She then went out of the house to look for her sister and they waited for their mother. Upon the arrival of the latter, they went to the police station where the investigation of the incident took place.

The other witness for the prosecution, Dr. Jesusa Nieves-Vergara, the medico-legal officer who conducted a physical examination of the victim, recounted that the victim was in a non-virgin state with deep lacerations, positioned at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock, respectively. The medico-legal expert opined that the lacerations in the hymen of the victim were indications of sexual abuse.4 [TSN, Nov. 13, 1995, pp. 3-5.]

Appellant interposed the defense of denial. According to him, on the alleged date of commission of the crime, he was alone, sleeping inside their rented room. He denied having raped the victim. No other witness was presented to corroborate appellant's testimony.

On May 13, 1996, the trial court found the evidence for the prosecution enough to convict appellant Jaime Balacano for raping his step-daughter Esmeralda Balacano. In arriving at its finding of guilt, the trial court ratiocinated:

xxx.............................xxx .............................xxx

Appellant's Brief is anchored on the lone assigned error, that:

Appellant contends that on the basis of the evidence on record, there is a doubt as to his guilt, and the same should be resolved in his favor pursuant to the constitutional provision that "xxx the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved xxx".6 [Section 14(2), Artcle III,] He theorizes that in criminal cases, the accused is entitled to acquittal in the absence of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.7 [Sec. 2, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.]

In criminal prosecutions, "reasonable doubt" is not a mere guess that the appellant may or may not be guilty. It is such a doubt that a reasonable man may entertain after a fair review and consideration of the evidence.8 [United States vs. Douglass, 2 Phil 461, 474.] It is:

In short, it is a state of the mind engendered by insufficient proof.10 [Ibid., citing: Lee Kheng vs. Go Chian, 55066-R, August 19, 1976.]

In this case under automatic review, there are pieces of evidence introduced by the prosecution to traverse the denial theorized upon by the defense.

Appellant contends that the evidence offered by the prosecution does not suffice to convict him; arguing that the prosecution depended heavily on the testimony of the victim, which he (appellant) brands as inadequate in view of admissions by the victim allegedly impairing her credibility and exposing the impossibility of commission of the rape charged, such as: (1) Her claim that she was raped five (5) times by the accused but she only reported the fifth rape; (2) Admission by the victim that no threats were made on her by the accused during or after the rape; and (3) That they (appellant's family) were renting only one room wherein all the family members were sleeping such that, rape could not have taken place therein.

The appeal is barren of merit.

Appellant relied principally on his defense of denial, insisting that he never raped Esmeralda, who is his step-daughter. Assisted by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), appellant narrated thus:

As repeatedly pronounced by this Court (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but even more difficult to disprove by the person charged, though innocent; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.12 [People vs. Obar, Jr., 253 SCRA 288, 293; People vs. Melivo, 253 SCRA 347, 362.]

But, time and again, the Court has ruled that the lone testimony of the victim may suffice to convict the rapist. When a victim says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.13 [People vs. Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142, 151; People vs. Cristobal, 252 SCRA 507, 516.] The aforestated principle applies squarely to this case.

As a general rule, the factual findings by the trial court deserve a high degree of respect and are not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could alter the conviction of the accused.14 [People vs. Jagolingay, 280 SCRA 768, 774.]

In the case under scrutiny, the Court agrees with the lower court that the credibility of the victim has not been impaired by her alleged inconsistencies alluded to by the appellant. On this score, the trial court said:

As regards the first inconsistency referred to, considering that appellant has been convicted for the fifth rape, which he perpetrated on August 9, 1995, it does not matter whether or not there are proofs on record of the four other rapes he previously committed. The lack of evidence of the four other rapes aforesaid is of no moment.

It should be noted that appellant was only tried and convicted for the fifth rape. Immediately after the rape on August 9, 1995, the victim informed her mother what happened and both of them proceeded to the police station for an investigation of the rape complained of, as can be gleaned from the records on hand, to wit:

xxx.............................xxx .............................xxx

xxx.............................xxx .............................xxx

On August 16, 1995 or seven days after the August 9, 1995 rape, the victim (with the assistance of her mother) was able to formalize her complaint before Asst. Prosecutor Wilfredo L. Maynigo. There was thus no delay in reporting the incident sued upon. Anyway, delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of the complaining witness.17 [People vs. Devilleres, 269 SCRA 716, 730.]

On the issue of whether the absence of threats negated the present charge of rape, the Court rules in the negative.

Appellant placed reliance on his theory that there was no threat as the victim admitted that no threats were made against her life or that of her family; and that the physical examination conducted on the victim by the medico-legal officer showed no signs of physical injuries.

It should be borne in mind that appellant is lawfully married to the mother of the victim, who practically grew up recognizing the appellant as her own father.

The relationship between a stepfather and stepdaughter is akin to the relationship of a natural father and a natural daughter especially if the stepdaughter grew up recognizing him as her own. Such relationship necessarily engendered moral ascendancy of the stepfather over the step-daughter.

Although it is true that there were no physical injuries found in the victim's body, in rape cases absence of bodily threats does not matter where there is an existing relationship between the appellant and the victim, resulting to moral ascendancy of the former over the latter. Appellant being the "step-father" of the victim certainly exercised moral and physical ascendancy over the victim, which ascendancy could suffice to cow the step-daughter into submission to her stepfather's bestial desires.18 [People vs. Sagaral, 267 SCRA 671, 680; People vs. Casil, 241 SCRA 285; People vs. Obejas, 229 SCRA 549.] A stepfather need not make any threat against the stepdaughter because the latter is cowed into submission when gripped with the fear of refusing the advances of a person she customarily obeys.

Appellant argues that it was impossible for him to rape his stepdaughter since they were renting a single room where he slept with his wife, their daughter and the victim. This contention is also untenable. Rape may be committed in a room which is adjacent to where the victim's family is sleeping or even in a room which the victim shares with other people. There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.19 [People vs. Devilleres, supra; People vs. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441; People vs. Catoltol, Sr., 265 SCRA 109.]

Anent the defense of denial by appellant, it is a well-settled rule that denials unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving and deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the credible testimony of the victim.

In the case under evaluation, appellant failed to substantiate his defense of denial. He merely theorized that he was probably sleeping at the time of the incident. On this point, appellant declared:

Verily, the testimony of the victim, duly corroborated by the medico-legal report, prevails over appellant's plain denial of the charges against him. Dr. Jesusa Nieves-Vergara, the medico legal officer who conducted the medical examination, disclosed:

xxx.............................xxx .............................xxx

xxx.............................xxx.............................xxx

xxx.............................xxx .............................xxx

xxx.............................xxx .............................xxx

It bears stressing here that the victim was only fourteen years old when she lodged the complaint against her stepfather. It has been held that no woman, especially one of tender age, would contrive a complaint for rape, allow a gynelogic examination and permit herself to be subjected to a public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.22 [People vs. Antipona, 274 SCRA 328, 335; People vs. Gagto, 253 SCRA 455; People vs. Abordo, 258 SCRA 571.] In fact, the prevailing rule is that the testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence.23 [People vs. Galimba, 253 SCRA 722, 728.] No young girl would expose herself to humiliation and public scandal unless she is impelled by a strong desire to seek justice.24 [People vs. Andres, 253 SCRA 751, 757.]

The instances cited by appellant being insufficient to tilt the scales of justice in his favor, the Court is fully convinced that the appellant is guilty.

But for what crime is appellant answerable?

After a careful study and assessment of the evidence on hand, only the crime of simple rape was committed. The trial court erred in applying Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of RA 7659, which prescribes the death penalty, when the victim is 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.

Although the propriety of imposition of the penalty has not been raised by appellant; nonetheless, an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct any error, as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether assigned as an error or not.25 [People vs. Reñola, 308 SCRA 145 citing: People vs. Medina, 300 SCRA 98.]

A reading of the Information in Criminal Case No. Q-95-62686 leads to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant was merely indicted for simple rape and not for rape with the qualifying circumstances within the contemplation of RA 7659. Failure to mention the relationship between the appellant and the young victim, step-father and step-daughter, respectively, necessarily excludes the crime from the coverage of RA 7659. To justify the imposition of the supreme penalty of death, both the special qualifying circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the offender must be alleged and proved.

As succinctly ratiocinated in the case of People vs. Ramos:26 [People vs. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559, 575-576 citing: Section 14(2), Article III, Constitution and Section 1 (b), Rule 115; Sections 3, 4, 6-14, Rule 110; Rule 116; Rule 117; Sections 3, 4, 5, 11, Rule 120, Rules of Court.]

xxx.............................xxx .............................xxx

Consequently, the lack of allegation of relationship between the appellant and his victim in the Information for rape, precludes the imposition of the death penalty since relationship, in this particular form of rape, is qualifying and not just a generic aggravating circumstance. Having been informed of the crime of simple rape only, appellant can just be convicted of simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua prescribed therefor.

The award of P100,000.00 for moral damages is deemed to include the civil indemnity.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court in Criminal Case No. Q-95-62686 imposing the death penalty on appellant Jaime Balacano Y Dalafu is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the penalty imposed below is hereby REDUCED to reclusion perpetua. Appellant is ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, plus moral damages of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos. Costs against appellant

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., abroad on official business.