G.R. No. 128874 . September 24, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SAMSON BRAGAS y BLANCO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On May 17, 1996, an Information was filed charging Samson Bragas y Blanco with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 . The charge alleged that on or about April 30, 1995, in Davao City, the accused, by means of force, violence, and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of Lira Maureen Rosario against her will. The accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
The complainant, Lira Maureen Rosario, was born on February 9, 1983. Her parents separated in 1987, and in 1989, her mother, Maxima Roble Rosario, began living with the accused-appellant as common-law spouses. On April 30, 1995, when the complainant was twelve years old, her mother left for Manila. The complainant was left at home in Mahayag, Buhangin, Davao City, with her younger brother and the accused. At around 3:00 p.m., while her brother was playing outside, the accused entered her room, asked her to remove his dandruff, and then prevented her from leaving. He held her chin, forced her to lie down, removed his pants and brief, raised her skirt, removed her panty, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After the act, he warned her not to tell her mother.
The incident was reported on March 25, 1996, when the complainant confided in her neighbor, Mrs. Imelda Pania. The complainant’s mother was fetched, and the matter was reported to the Talomo Police Station the following day. A medical examination on March 26, 1996, by Dr. Danilo Ledesma revealed an abrasion and two old healed deep lacerations in the hymen.
The accused denied the charge, claiming he was at Dapecol, Davao del Norte, doing a carving job on April 30, 1995. The Regional Trial Court of Davao City convicted the accused of rape and sentenced him to death by lethal injection, plus an order to indemnify the complainant P30,000.00 as moral damages. The case is before the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, despite the alleged delay in reporting the incident and the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the appeal devoid of merit. The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the complainant’s testimony is accorded great weight and respect, as it had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand. The complainant’s testimony, which was detailed and consistent, meets the test of credibility. Her revelation, coupled with her voluntary submission to a medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial, cannot be dismissed as mere concoction.
The accused’s defense of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by the complainant. The delay in reporting the incident, which occurred ten months prior, is justified by the accused’s threat against the complainant. Fear of reprisal is a sufficient explanation for such delay.
However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty. The death penalty was imposed by the trial court because the victim was under eighteen years of age and the offender was the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim, a qualifying circumstance under Republic Act No. 7659 . This qualifying circumstance was not alleged in the Information. Following settled jurisprudence, such qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. Consequently, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award of moral damages is increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.