GR 115656; (June, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115656 June 27, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NILO RAMOS y BARREDO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Nilo Ramos, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City of two counts of rape against his niece, Maria Sierra Aguilar. The prosecution evidence established that in September 1993, appellant, the full-blood brother of the complainant’s mother, sexually assaulted the complainant on two separate occasions. The first rape occurred near a pigpen, and the second transpired inside a comfort room a week later. The complainant did not immediately report the incidents due to appellant’s threats to kill her and her entire family. She disclosed the rapes only a year later, after appellant was arrested as the prime suspect in the killing of her father.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the complainant’s testimony was credible despite alleged inconsistencies, her failure to shout for help, and the one-year delay in reporting; and (2) whether the accused-appellant could be validly convicted of two counts of rape based on the information filed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, holding the accused-appellant guilty of only one count of rape. On the first issue, the Court found the complainant’s testimony credible. Her failure to shout or offer vigorous physical resistance was justified by the appellant’s continuing death threats against her and her family, which instilled reasonable fear. The Court reiterated that resistance is not required when intimidation is present, and such intimidation is evaluated based on the victim’s perception at the time of the crime. The delay in reporting was sufficiently explained by the same threats, especially since they lived in the same house, making the threats ever-present. The defense of alibi was rejected for being weak and for failing to overcome the positive identification by the victim, who was his own niece.
On the second issue, the Court agreed with the appellant’s contention that he could only be convicted of one count of rape. A review of the information revealed that it charged only a single act of rape. Consequently, even if the evidence proved two distinct criminal acts, a conviction could only be for the single crime charged. The Court modified the trial court’s decision, convicting the appellant of one crime of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity was also increased to P50,000 as moral damages pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.