G.R. No. 124053 March 20, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Carlito Palaña y Saranggote, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Carlito Palaña y Saranggote was charged with the rape of his nine-year-old niece, Emelita Tamayo y Gonzales, on January 11, 1992, in Manila. The information alleged that he used force, violence, and intimidation, threatening to kill her if she resisted. The accused pleaded not guilty. At trial, the victim testified that the accused, her uncle by affinity (husband of her mother’s sister), called her to his bedroom while she was playing with her friend Agnes Diaz. He ordered her siblings to go downstairs, laid her down, removed her panty, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. Agnes later entered the room and witnessed the act; the accused threatened to electrocute her if she told anyone. Despite the threat, Agnes reported the rape to her mother, who then informed the victim’s mother. A medical examination confirmed the victim was no longer a virgin. The accused denied the charges, claiming the victim lost her virginity due to an accidental fall from a tree and that he had whipped her for stealing money, which could have caused the hymenal injury. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with MODIFICATION. The Court held that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The victim’s testimony was credible, spontaneous, and forthright. The Court ruled that in statutory rape (where the victim is under twelve years of age), force or intimidation need not be proved, and the absence of an outcry or struggle is immaterial as the law presumes the victim cannot have a will of her own. The accused’s moral ascendancy as a father-figure and uncle, with whom the victim lived, substituted for violence and intimidation. The delay in reporting the incident did not impair credibility, as it was due to the accused’s threats and the victim’s fear. The prosecution’s failure to present the corroborating witness, Agnes, was not fatal, as the accused can be convicted solely on the victim’s testimony. The accused’s denial and alternative explanation for the hymenal injury were unconvincing and could not prevail over the victim’s positive identification. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was proper under the law at the time of the crime. The Court modified the award by ordering the accused to pay an additional P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, which is mandatory upon a finding of rape.