G.R. No. 129056 February 21, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LIBERATO MENDIONA, a.k.a. “RENATO”, and TIRSO CINCO (at large), accused, LIBERATO MENDIONA, a.k.a. “RENATO”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Liberato Mendiona, and his co-accused Tirso Cinco (at large) were charged with rape. The prosecution evidence established that on October 7, 1995, in Dulag, Leyte, the 19-year-old victim, Maricel Capongcol, was alone in her house. Mendiona and Cinco forcibly entered by kicking a window shutter. They threatened her with a bolo (“pisao”), removed her clothing, and muffled her shouts. Mendiona then proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her twice while Cinco held her thighs. The victim’s cousins, Felix Naing and Virgilio Malte, heard her screams and rushed to the house, witnessing the accused jump out of the window and finding the victim crying. The victim initially withheld disclosure out of fear but later reported the rape to her mother. The defense relied solely on alibi, claiming Mendiona was at his grandmother’s house half a kilometer away.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Liberato Mendiona of the crime of rape and imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The Court found the victim’s testimony to be clear, credible, and consistent, detailing the forcible entry, threats with a deadly weapon, and sexual assault. Her testimony was corroborated by her cousin, Felix Naing, who saw the accused fleeing the scene. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially as the distance to the grandmother’s house did not preclude Mendiona’s presence at the crime scene. The crime was qualified under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry, which were not offset by any mitigating circumstance. Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the presence of these aggravating circumstances mandated the imposition of the supreme penalty of death. The Court modified the civil liability, increasing the award of civil indemnity to the victim to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.