GR 134101; (September, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134101; September 5, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELINO LLANITA y OPIANA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Felino Llanita, was charged with the qualified rape of five-year-old Catherine Acol. The Information alleged that on March 25, 1996, in Kawit, Cavite, the accused, taking advantage of his superior strength, had carnal knowledge of the victim against her will. During trial, Catherine, then six years old, testified that the accused, whom she knew as “Junjun,” undressed her, covered her with a blanket, kissed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina inside his house at noontime. She stated this happened in the presence of the accused’s children, her playmates, who were upstairs. She further revealed it was the third such incident, and she did not immediately report due to threats.
The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming the accused was elsewhere during the alleged incident. The trial court found the testimony of the young victim credible and convicted the accused of qualified rape, imposing the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of qualified rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a child-victim of rape, given in a candid and straightforward manner, is accorded full weight and credit. Catherine’s testimony was clear, consistent, and convincing. Her young age made it improbable for her to fabricate a story of sexual abuse, and the details she provided were spontaneous. The medical certificate, showing an old healed hymenal laceration, corroborated her account of penetration.
The Court rejected the defense of denial and alibi as weak and unsubstantiated, especially when weighed against the positive identification by the victim. The qualifying circumstance of the victim’s minority (under twelve years of age) and the accused’s relationship as a neighbor, constituting moral ascendancy, were duly proven, warranting the imposition of the death penalty under the law. The Court modified the award of damages, increasing civil indemnity to P75,000.00 and awarding moral damages of P50,000.00. The decision was affirmed with instructions for transmittal to the Office of the President.