G.R. No. 129693 January 24, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUDY CORTES Y CABALLERO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Rudy Cortes, was charged with the rape of his seventeen-year-old sister-in-law, Analiza Germina. The information alleged that on September 29, 1995, in Baleno, Masbate, the accused, armed with a knife, used violence and intimidation to have carnal knowledge of the victim against her will. Analiza testified that she was alone in her parents’ house when she was awakened at midnight by the accused on top of her, pressing a knife to her throat and covering her mouth with a handkerchief. She struggled but he overpowered her, removed her underwear, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. After the act, he threatened to kill her if she reported the incident.
The defense interposed alibi, claiming the accused was at his own home with his wife, the victim’s sister, at the time of the alleged crime. The defense suggested the charge was fabricated due to a family misunderstanding, as the accused and his wife had advised Analiza not to allow her boyfriend to sleep in the family home. The trial court, however, found the testimony of the victim to be credible, straightforward, and consistent, and convicted the accused of rape, imposing the death penalty due to the presence of aggravating circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape beyond reasonable doubt based on the victim’s testimony and in imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the victim’s credibility, emphasizing that the trial judge’s direct observation of a witness’s demeanor is accorded the highest respect. Analiza’s testimony was clear, candid, and consistent even under cross-examination, detailing the use of a knife, the force applied, and the sexual penetration. Her immediate report of pain and her subsequent medical examination, which revealed a healed hymenal laceration, corroborated her account. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim.
Regarding the penalty, the Court found the imposition of death to be erroneous. The crime was committed in 1995 under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. While the use of a deadly weapon qualified the crime for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, the trial court improperly considered generic aggravating circumstances to impose the supreme penalty. The Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon is inherent in the crime as charged and cannot be used again as an aggravating circumstance to justify death. Furthermore, the special aggravating circumstance of relationship (the accused being the victim’s brother-in-law) was not alleged in the information, thus it could not be considered to justify the death penalty. Therefore, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the award of moral damages.