GR 130517; (July, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 130517-21; July 16, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CANDIDO SOLOMON y MARQUEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Candido Solomon, was charged with five counts of rape against his 15-year-old stepdaughter, Charlyn Fernandez. The incidents allegedly occurred on June 16, July 5, July 10, August 3, and August 12, 1995, within their one-room nipa house in Zamboanga City. Charlyn testified that during each assault, appellant would threaten and intimidate her, often while her young half-brothers were present. She detailed her resistance, including pushing, kicking, and pleading, which was consistently overpowered by the appellant. The defense presented alibi and denial, claiming Charlyn’s testimony was fabricated due to familial resentment. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant on all counts and imposed the death penalty for each, leading to this automatic review.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for the five counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the credibility of the complainant’s testimony and the presence of force or intimidation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for the rapes committed on June 16, July 5, and July 10, 1995, but acquitted the appellant for the alleged rapes on August 3 and August 12, 1995. The Court upheld Charlyn’s testimony for the first three counts as credible, straightforward, and consistent. It ruled that her detailed narration of the threats, violence, and sexual acts, corroborated by her immediate reporting to her mother and the medical certificate, constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the complainant’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The defense of alibi and denial could not prevail over her positive identification.
However, for the last two counts, the Court found reasonable doubt. The testimony for the August 3 incident was deemed vague regarding the specific acts of force and intimidation, failing to meet the exacting standard of proof for capital offenses. Regarding the August 12 incident, the Court noted a critical inconsistency: Charlyn testified she was alone with appellant, but her mother’s statement indicated she was present in the house at the time. This inconsistency created doubt about the occurrence of that specific rape. Consequently, the death penalties for the first three counts were modified to reclusion perpetua, as the requisite qualifying circumstance of the victim being under 18 and the offender being a step-parent was not alleged in the informations. The acquittals for the last two counts were ordered.