G.R. No. 119963 November 6, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUSSEL FUENSALIDA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Russel Fuensalida was charged with the rape of his 12-year-old daughter, Maria Corazon Fuensalida, on January 27, 1993, in Quezon City. The information alleged that he used force, intimidation, and a knife to have carnal knowledge of her against her will. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence established that while Maria Corazon was sleeping, she was awakened to see her father entering the room with a knife and a blanket. He caught her as she tried to flee, locked the door, pushed her against a cabinet, dragged her to a sofa, boxed her stomach, and then, while on top of her, used the knife to tear her shorts and underwear before inserting his penis into her vagina. He warned her not to report the incident. Her mother, Corazon Fuensalida, testified that she was appellant’s common-law wife and that Maria Corazon revealed the rape to her upon her return home that evening. Dr. Vladimir B. Villaseñor’s medical examination confirmed that the victim was no longer a virgin and had hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse. The defense consisted of denial and alibi, claiming appellant was cooking pig feed 100 meters away at the time and that the charge was fabricated due to the victim’s anger from being scolded and maltreated. The trial court convicted appellant, sentencing him to 34 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion perpetua, considering the aggravating circumstance of relationship, and ordering him to indemnify the victim P50,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Russel Fuensalida of rape based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Maria Corazon, to be categorical, positive, convincing, straightforward, firm, and delivered with spontaneity, which established the commission of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected appellant’s arguments regarding the physical difficulty of the act and the delay in reporting, holding that such delay does not impair credibility, especially as the victim explained her fear and the desire to protect family honor. The defense of denial and alibi was deemed insufficient to overcome the positive identification by the victim. However, the Court corrected the penalty imposed, noting that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty and must be imposed in its entirety regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, following the ruling in People vs. Lucas. Thus, appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in its full extent. The indemnity of P50,000.00 was sustained.