G.R. No. 105842 November 24, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE BAHUYAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Felipe Bahuyan was charged with the rape of eleven-year-old Sharee Ann Robinson on January 10, 1987, in Dumaguete City. The information alleged he used force, intimidation, and a deadly weapon. The prosecution established that the accused, whom the complainant addressed as “Lolo” due to their close family relationship, lured the victim to his house under the pretext of retrieving a bread container. Once inside, he pulled her, poked a knife at her neck, forced her upstairs, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge. The victim, scared and in pain, did not immediately report the incident. Her mother learned of the rape over three years later from neighborhood talk, after which they filed the complaint. The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming the accused was elsewhere during the incident.
The trial court convicted Bahuyan of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, he argued that the victim’s three-year delay in reporting the crime rendered her testimony incredible, that the medical findings did not conclusively prove loss of virginity, and that his advanced age of over eighty years should mitigate his liability.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged delay in reporting, the medical evidence, and the claim of mitigating circumstance of old age.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The delay in reporting the rape was sufficiently explained by the victim’s tender age, her fear due to the death threat from the accused, and the accused’s close and influential relationship with her family, which instilled reverence and fear. Such delay does not undermine credibility, especially in child rape cases. The medical certificate, while indicating an elastic hymen, did not negate rape, as penetration alone, not necessarily full hymenal laceration, consummates the crime. The Court gave utmost weight to the victim’s clear, consistent, and categorical testimony, which withstood rigorous cross-examination.
Regarding the mitigating circumstance of old age, the Court ruled it was not proven. The accused failed to present a birth certificate or other competent evidence to substantiate his claim of being over eighty. Even assuming it was true, old age is merely a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying Article 63, when the penalty consists of two indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua to death for rape with a deadly weapon) and a mitigating circumstance is present without any aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is properly imposed. The Court, however, deleted the erroneous reference to the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the dispositive portion, as it does not apply to indivisible penalties like reclusion perpetua.