G.R. No. 135027, July 3, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTEMIO SORIANO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the rape of six-year-old May Ann Fontillas. The prosecution established that sometime in May 1995, in Bauang, La Union, accused-appellant Artemio Soriano, a neighbor known to the victim as “Manong Iniong,” intercepted May Ann as she walked home. He took her to a dry creek, made her lie down, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. May Ann testified that the accused-appellant raped her on several subsequent occasions in his house, enticing her with candies and lollipops and threatening her not to tell anyone. The crime was discovered in August 1995 when the victim’s mother, Mirasol, overheard a conversation between May Ann and the accused-appellant’s young sister, Baby Cake, who revealed the sexual acts. When confronted, May Ann confirmed the rapes to her parents.
The medical examination conducted on May Ann by Dr. Marida Poligrates revealed healed vaginal lacerations at the 3, 6, and 9 o’clock positions, and that her introitus admitted a fifth finger with ease, corroborating the fact of sexual intercourse. The defense presented a denial and alibi, claiming the accused-appellant was elsewhere during the alleged incidents. The Regional Trial Court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and imposed the death penalty, prompting this automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the child-victim, May Ann, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. At her tender age, she could not have fabricated a story of such a depraved experience. Her testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of healed lacerations, which were consistent with repeated sexual intercourse. The defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification by the victim. The Court also noted that the victim’s delay in reporting the crime, out of fear of the accused-appellant’s threats and her mother’s reprimand, is understandable and does not undermine her credibility.
However, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The information alleged that the crime occurred “on or about and sometime in the month of May, 1995.” The Court ruled that this allegation was insufficient to constitute the special qualifying circumstance that the victim was under seven (7) years of age at the time of the rape, which would warrant the death penalty under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. For the death penalty to be imposed, the information must specifically allege that the victim was below seven years old at the precise time of the commission of the offense. The generic allegation regarding the date was too indefinite to support a finding that the victim was under seven at the exact moment of the rape. Consequently, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the award of civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim.