G.R. No. 139236 . February 3, 2004.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RODEL ANTIVOLA, appellant.

FACTS

On December 4, 1997, in Angat, Bulacan, five-year-old Rachel de Guzman was playing outside when appellant Rodel Antivola, known as “Bungi,” approached her. He invited her to his house to play a game. Once inside, he removed her shorts, touched her private parts, and inserted his penis into her vagina despite her cries. Afterward, he let her go. Rachel went home but did not immediately report the incident. Her mother, Sally, later noticed crease marks on Rachel’s clothes and a reddish discoloration on her private part while bathing her. When asked, Rachel identified “Bungi” as her assailant. Sally reported the crime, leading to Antivola’s arrest. A medico-legal examination revealed multiple fresh lacerations on Rachel’s hymen.
The appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was at a fishpond harvesting fish the entire afternoon of the incident. He asserted that the charge was fabricated by Rachel’s family due to envy over his work at the fishpond. His employer, Ruben Nicolas, and co-worker, Marites Capalad, corroborated his alibi, testifying he was continuously working at the fishpond from noon until late afternoon and did not leave.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, but the crime is simple rape, not qualified rape. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Rachel’s credibility, finding her testimony straightforward and consistent. The testimony of a child victim, given in a candid and spontaneous manner, is accorded full weight and credit. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it could not prevail over Rachel’s positive identification. The appellant was sufficiently identified, and his house’s proximity to the crime scene made it physically possible for him to have committed the act.
However, the Court found the qualifying circumstance of the victim’s minority was not sufficiently alleged in the Information. While the Information stated Rachel was “a minor, five (5) years of age,” it failed to specifically allege her exact age as an element of qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. For a conviction of qualified rape leading to the death penalty, the Information must expressly state the victim’s age. This deficiency warrants the downgrading of the crime from qualified to simple rape. Consequently, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The appellant is ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.