G.R. No. 123151 January 29, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Sabino Gementiza, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Sabino Gementiza was charged with the rape of Rosalyn Hinampas, allegedly committed on November 13, 1992, in Davao City. The complaint stated the act was done by means of force and intimidation against a 15-year-old retardate. After pleading not guilty and trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and indemnity of P30,000. The prosecution established that on November 13, 1992, at noon, Rosalyn was gathering discarded banana fruits at a plantation when appellant grabbed her, dragged her to a nearby makeshift hut, undressed her, fondled her breasts, and, despite her resistance, had carnal knowledge of her under threat of death. Rosalyn reported the incident to her brother on November 15, 1992, and was later examined by a doctor who found a healing deep laceration on her hymen. A psychiatric evaluation revealed she suffered from moderate mental retardation. The defense presented alibi, with appellant and witnesses claiming he was at the plantation’s packing house and makeshift hut during lunchtime, cutting hair and eating, and did not see Rosalyn. On appeal, appellant argued the prosecution evidence was inadequate and the court failed to appreciate the delay in filing the complaint and the place and time of the crime.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed rape. Sub-issues include the credibility of the victim’s uncorroborated testimony, the significance of the delay in reporting the crime, and the relevance of the victim’s mental retardation to the conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The lone testimony of the rape victim, Rosalyn Hinampas, was found credible, straightforward, and sufficient for conviction, as it is settled that such testimony, if credible, can be the sole basis for conviction. Minor inconsistencies (e.g., the day of the week) did not impair her credibility but rather indicated unrehearsed testimony. The defense of alibi and non-flight cannot prevail over positive identification. The delay in reporting (about four months) was not indicative of fabrication, as delay is not uncommon for rape victims. The fact that appellant could not suggest any improper motive for the accusation strengthened the victim’s credibility. While the complaint alleged the victim was a retardate, proof of this was not necessary for conviction under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as the elements of force and intimidation were duly proved. The Court increased the indemnity to P50,000 as moral damages. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, noting it remains an indivisible penalty.