G.R. No. 140635 , November 18, 2002
The People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Mario Terrible y Oña, appellant.

FACTS

On or about November 2, 1998, in Calamba, Laguna, appellant Mario Terrible y Oña was accused of raping his six-year-old daughter, Katherine Terrible. The information charged him under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, for inserting his penis into the victim’s mouth through force and intimidation. The prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, her mother Gina Terrible, and Dr. Felimon Raymond P. Guerra III. Katherine testified that appellant kissed her lips, made her lick his nipples, inserted his penis into her mouth (from which a whitish substance came out), and inserted his finger into her vagina while they were alone in a room. Gina testified that Katherine whispered the incident to her the following day, which was confirmed when Gina’s brother questioned the child. Dr. Guerra’s medico-legal findings showed an old genital laceration and redness of the labia minora, consistent with sexual abuse. The defense interposed alibi and denial, claiming appellant was at his father’s house three kilometers away during the alleged incident and that the charge was fabricated by his wife due to marital strife. The trial court found the victim’s testimony credible, convicted appellant of rape, and imposed the death penalty with an award of P50,000 moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of rape based on the credibility of the victim’s testimony and in disregarding the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the victim’s credibility, noting her testimony was categorical, straightforward, and given with the innocence of a child. The defense of alibi and denial could not prevail over the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim. The medico-legal findings corroborated the claim of sexual abuse. However, the Court found that the information specifically alleged rape under Article 266-A(2) (sexual assault), not under Article 266-A(1) (carnal knowledge). Although the evidence proved acts constitutive of rape under paragraph 1, appellant could only be convicted under the paragraph alleged in the information. Thus, the penalty was reduced from death to reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil liability was increased, ordering appellant to pay the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.