G.R. No. 132169 ; October 26, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANICO NUEVO @ “SANY”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Sanico Nuevo, was convicted of rape and sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court. The prosecution alleged that on December 4, 1994, Nuevo, after inviting the victim’s husband to a drinking session, returned to the victim’s house, threatened her with a bolo, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her in the presence of her young niece. The victim, Roberta Cido, positively identified Nuevo by his voice, being a longtime neighbor. Her husband corroborated the timeline, noting Nuevo’s absence from the drinking session during the alleged incident. Medical examination revealed no fresh injuries, which the doctor attributed to a prior childbirth, and no spermatozoa, likely due to the two-day delay in examination.
The defense presented an alibi, with Nuevo claiming he was asleep at the father-in-law’s house during the entire night, a story corroborated by his brother. The trial court found the prosecution’s version credible, giving greater weight to the victim’s clear and consistent testimony over the defense’s denial and alibi, which was not physically impossible given the proximity of the locations.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape and imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of credibility, emphasizing that the victim’s straightforward testimony, corroborated on material points, prevails over the weak alibi and denial of the accused. The positive identification by the victim, who recognized the appellant’s familiar voice in the dark, was deemed credible and sufficient for conviction. The medical findings did not negate rape, as the absence of fresh injuries can be explained by the victim’s prior sexual history and childbirth, and the absence of spermatozoa by the lapse of time before examination.
However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The information alleged the crime was committed “in full view of the victim’s niece,” which constitutes a qualifying circumstance for the death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659 . The Court ruled that this circumstance must be alleged with particularity in the information to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty. A general allegation that the crime was committed in the niece’s presence is insufficient; the information must expressly state it was committed “in full view of” the relative. This fatal omission means the crime is treated as simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The appellant was also ordered to pay the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.