G.R. No. 126166 July 10, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO1 ALLAN TEJADA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves two counts of rape committed against Charisse C. Mendoza, a minor. Two separate Informations were filed accusing PO1 Allan Tejada of the crime of rape, committed on or about April 3, 1995, and May 16, 1995, in Lingayen, Pangasinan. The cases were consolidated. The prosecution’s version established that on the night of April 2, 1995, the 13-year-old complainant was asked by her grandmother to sleep at her house. The accused, who was married to the complainant’s cousin, arrived home later that night. At dawn, the accused pinned the complainant on the sofa, covered her mouth, threatened to shoot her and her father, and then had sexual intercourse with her against her will. A second rape occurred on May 16, 1995, when the complainant was again sleeping at her grandmother’s house with her siblings. The accused again sexually assaulted her at dawn, using force and intimidation and repeating his threats. The crimes were later revealed when the complainant was found to be pregnant. The accused interposed the defense of alibi. The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and imposed the death penalty for each count, along with damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The issues raised by the accused-appellant were: (1) whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the complainant despite alleged contradictions with her sworn statement; (2) whether the trial court erred in not believing the appellant’s defense of alibi; and (3) whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the complainant credible, straightforward, and consistent on material points. The alleged contradictions between her court testimony and sworn statement were minor and did not affect her credibility. The defense of alibi was properly rejected as it was not physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. However, the Court modified the penalty. The death penalty could not be imposed because the qualifying circumstance of the victim’s minority (under 18) was not alleged in the Informations. The crimes were committed in 1995, and Republic Act No. 7659, which re-imposed the death penalty, took effect in 1994. Since the Informations did not allege the complainant’s age as an element of the crime for the imposition of the death penalty, the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. The Court affirmed the award of moral damages and the order for the accused to acknowledge and support the child.