G.R. No. 123115 August 25, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NIXON MALAPO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nixon Malapo was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City of the crime of rape against Amalia Trinidad and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay P50,000.00 in moral damages. The information alleged that sometime in September 1991, in Salvacion, Iriga City, the accused, by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Amalia Trinidad against her will, resulting in her pregnancy and the delivery of a baby on May 18, 1992. The prosecution presented three witnesses: the victim Amalia Trinidad; her guardian, Nenita No; and a guidance counselor, Bernardita Marquinez. Amalia, a retardate under the care of Nenita No since 1978, testified that while alone at home in September 1991, accused-appellant entered, forcibly brought her to the dining room, covered her mouth, removed her clothing and his, and had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance, causing lacerations and bleeding. He threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. She only revealed the rape to Bernardita Marquinez on May 18, 1992, when she was about to give birth. Nenita No corroborated that she found Amalia crying on the day of the incident and saw accused-appellant hastily leaving their yard. The defense presented alibi, claiming accused-appellant was working as a duck watcher in San Jose, Buhi, Camarines Sur, from July 1991 to January 1992, and argued that Amalia failed to identify him on three occasions. He also contended that the baby, being full-term and born on May 18, 1992, could not have been conceived from a rape in September 1991, as that period is only eight months.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of rape based on the evidence presented, particularly in light of the defense’s argument regarding the gestation period of the victim’s child.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. It held that the defense’s contention regarding the gestation period was without merit. Citing a pediatrics textbook, the Court explained that an infant weighing over 2,275 grams is considered full-term even if born before the thirty-seventh week of gestation. Amalia’s baby weighed 2.4 kilograms, thus qualifying as full-term despite being born approximately eight months after the alleged rape in September 1991. Furthermore, under Article 166 of the Family Code, legitimacy may be impugned only on specific grounds, such as physical impossibility of intercourse or proof that the child could not be that of the husband (or, by analogy, the accused). Accused-appellant failed to show any such grounds. The Court also emphasized that impregnation is not an element of rape; the crime is established by carnal knowledge under the circumstances defined by law, which was proven through Amalia’s positive testimony, corroborated by other witnesses. The trial court’s findings on credibility were accorded respect. The Court modified the decision by ordering accused-appellant to pay an additional P50,000.00 as indemnity, to acknowledge the filiation of the child, and to provide support, the amount of which was to be determined by the trial court upon remand.