G.R. No. 139351 ; February 23, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. WARLITO TOLENTINO y LAQUIN, appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on February 6, 1996, seven-year-old Mylene Mendoza was sent on an errand by her father. Upon arriving at her grandmother’s empty house in Barangay Namnama, Santiago City, she was approached by appellant Warlito Tolentino. Tolentino took her to his house, struck her head, rendering her unconscious, and raped her. Mylene was later found unconscious on the street. Medical examination confirmed vaginal lacerations consistent with forcible penetration. The following day, after regaining consciousness, Mylene positively identified Tolentino’s house and, in a police line-up, identified Tolentino himself as her assailant.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Tolentino claimed he was at his brother’s house that evening and only saw a commotion near his home upon returning. He alleged that Mylene was coerced by a relative to point at him during the investigation. The Regional Trial Court found Tolentino guilty of rape with the use of a deadly weapon and imposed the death penalty, prompting this automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of appellant Warlito Tolentino for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence conclusive. Mylene’s categorical and consistent testimony, delivered in a straightforward manner, was credible and sufficient to establish the elements of rape. Her positive identification of the appellant, both his house and his person, remained unshaken despite rigorous cross-examination. The medical findings of Dr. Ramon Hilomen corroborated her account of forcible sexual assault. The defense of alibi and denial, inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a child victim, when credible, is accorded full weight and credit.
However, the Court modified the penalty. The Information did not allege the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance that would warrant the death penalty under the law at the time. Since this special qualifying circumstance was not pleaded, it could not be validly considered. Consequently, the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua. The award of exemplary damages was also set aside due to the absence of any aggravating circumstance. The Court affirmed the conviction for simple rape and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, along with civil indemnity and moral damages.