G.R. No. 137969 -71. August 15, 2001.
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rafael Salalima y Garcia, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Rafael Salalima y Garcia, was charged with three counts of rape in separate Informations dated March 21, 1997. The charges alleged that in March, April, and May of 1996, in Sitio Ebo, Barangay Tambis, Barobo, Surigao del Sur, the accused, by use of force and intimidation and while armed with a bolo, had carnal knowledge of the 13-year-old complainant, Miladel Q. Escudero, against her will. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court consolidated the cases and, after trial, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape and sentenced him to death for each count. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
The prosecution evidence, primarily from the complainant and her mother, established that the accused, the complainant’s grandfather by affinity (being the father of her stepfather), lived with and ate meals at their house. The first rape occurred in March 1996 in a room of their house while the complainant’s mother was away. The accused awakened the sleeping complainant, held a bolo to her neck, threatened to kill her and her mother if she shouted, undressed her, and had sexual intercourse with her. Similar incidents occurred in April 1996 in the kitchen and in May 1996 again in a room, each time with the accused using a bolo to threaten the complainant. The complainant did not immediately report the incidents due to the accused’s threats. The crimes were revealed in December 1996 after an altercation between the accused and the complainant’s mother, during which the accused stated he had had sexual intercourse with the complainant. The mother then confronted the complainant, who confirmed the rapes. The complainant was medically examined, but the medical certificate was not presented in court. The defense presented alibi, claiming the accused was in another city during the alleged periods, and denial, claiming the charges were fabricated due to a family quarrel.

ISSUE

The principal issue for review is whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape and imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the complainant’s testimony to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. The Court held that the testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The defense of alibi was rejected as it was not physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene, and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of rape.
However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty. The Informations alleged that the complainant was a 13-year-old minor but did not specifically allege her exact age or that she was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the rape. The Court ruled that for the death penalty to be imposed under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 , the qualifying circumstance that the victim is under 18 years of age must be specifically alleged in the Information. Since the Informations in this case did not contain such a specific allegation, the death penalty could not be imposed. Instead, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua for each count of rape.
On civil liability, the Court awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count of rape, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was thus AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and to pay the corresponding civil indemnity and moral damages.