G.R. No.

117472 June 25, 1996

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.

FACTS:
In 1994 accused-appellant Leo Echegaray was charged and convicted for the crime of raping his
ten-year old step daughter, Rodessa Echegaray. During the commencement of the crime
sometime in April 1994, Republic Act 7659 or also known as the Death Penalty Law was already
in effect.
On September 7, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104 review the
judgement of conviction and sentenced Leo Echegaray to suffer penalty of DEATH, to pay the
complainant the sum of 50, 000 pesos as damages, plus all the accessory penalties provided by
law, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellant should be imposed with Death Penalty for the crime of rape.
RULING:

The law has made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accused-appellant
face the supreme penalty of death.

Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 often referred to as the Death Penalty Law,
Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code was amended, to wit:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. When the victim is under eigthteen (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.

On direct examination, he admitted that before the charge of rape was filed against him, he
had treated Rodessa as his real daughter and had provided for her food, clothing, shelter and
education. The Court notes that Rodessa uses the surname of the accused-appellant, not Rivera
(her mother's maiden name) nor Alfonso (her grandmother's live-in partner). Moreover,
Rodessa's mother stated during the cross-examination that she, the accused-appellant, and her
five children, including Rodessa, had been residing in one house only. At any rate, even if he
were not the father, stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa, this disclaimer cannot save him from
the abyss where perpetrators of heinous crimes ought to be, as mandated by law. Considering
that the accused-appellant is a confirmed lover of Rodessa's mother, he falls squarely within
the aforequoted portion of the Death Penalty Law under the term "common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim."

The fact that the ten-year old Rodessa referred to the accused-appellant as "Papa" is reason
enough to conclude that accused-appellant is either the father or stepfather of Rodessa. Thus,
the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused on his young victim has become all the
more repulsive and perverse. The victim's tender age and the accused-appellant's moral
ascendancy and influence over her are factors which forced Rodessa to succumb to the
accused's selfish and bestial craving. WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 104.