G.R. No. 137647 February 1, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO FERNANDEZ y MALINAO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Wilfredo Fernandez, was the live-in partner of the victim’s mother. On the evening of December 28, 1996, while the victim, fifteen-year-old Melissande Pasasala, was at home with her younger sister, Wilfredo arrived from a drinking session. After his companions left, he called for Melissande. He initially engaged her in conversation before making advances, which she resisted. He later dragged her to the bathroom, threatened her with a knife, and stated he had an urge to kill. He then forced her to her bedroom on the mezzanine floor.
Inside the bedroom, despite her pleas of “I don’t want,” Wilfredo removed her clothing, positioned himself on top of her, and punched her when she shouted. He succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. The act was interrupted when her mother arrived and knocked on the door, causing Wilfredo to flee. Melissande immediately escaped and reported the rape to her older brother. A medical examination confirmed sexual intercourse, and she executed a sworn statement. The prosecution also presented evidence that this was not the first instance of rape, as Wilfredo had threatened her into silence regarding a prior incident in 1994.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the victim to be credible, natural, and consistent. Her detailed account of the sequence of events, from the initial harassment to the actual rape, was corroborated by her immediate outcry to her brother and the subsequent medical findings. The defense of denial and alibi proffered by the accused-appellant was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The Court held that when a victim, especially a minor, testifies credibly about a rape, her testimony is given greater weight.
However, the Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The information alleged that the victim was fifteen years old, but it failed to specifically allege her exact age or that she was under eighteen and that the offender was a common-law spouse of her parent—qualifying circumstances that would warrant the death penalty under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 . For the penalty of death to be imposed, these qualifying circumstances must be both alleged in the information and proven during trial. Their absence in the information, despite being proven, bars the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, the crime committed was simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The award of moral damages was also increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) in line with prevailing jurisprudence.