G.R. Nos. 148917-18 November 21, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABSOLON YONTO y UTOM, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Two separate Informations charged accused-appellant Absolon Yonto y Utom, the common-law spouse of complainant Jennibeth Cristal y Villarimo’s mother, with two counts of rape committed on June 13, 1998, and July 19, 1998, in Malabon, Metro Manila. The informations alleged he was her stepfather, armed with a bolo, and used force, violence, and intimidation. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented complainant Jennibeth, who was 14 years old at the time of the incidents. She testified that on both dates, while she was asleep in the house they shared with others, accused-appellant awakened her, poked a bolo at her neck, threatened to kill her if she made noise, undressed her, fondled her, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. She reported the incidents in February 1999 to her aunt, leading to a barangay report, a medical examination at Camp Crame, and a sworn statement at the Malabon Police Station. Dr. Emmanuel Reyes confirmed her non-virgin state and healed hymenal lacerations consistent with forcible sexual intercourse. The defense presented accused-appellant and his sister, Trinidad Maglahos. Accused-appellant claimed alibi, stating he was working as a mechanic in Quezon City during the nights in question, and that the house was small and crowded, making the rape impossible. He alleged the complaint was fabricated by the complainant’s mother due to a dispute over money and that a cousin, Mario Delyenos, was the actual perpetrator. Trinidad Maglahos corroborated the living conditions and claimed she heard no noise on the night of July 19, 1998. The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced him to death for each count, plus civil indemnity and moral damages.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant for two counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found complainant’s testimony to be credible, straightforward, categorical, and consistent with human nature. It held that her lone testimony, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. The Court rejected accused-appellant’s defense of alibi as weak and inherently unreliable, noting it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene given the proximity of his workplace to his residence. The Court also found his claim of fabrication due to a financial dispute unconvincing and contrary to human experience. The medical findings, while not showing fresh injuries, corroborated the claim of sexual intercourse. The qualifying circumstance of relationship (stepfather-stepdaughter) was duly proven, as was the use of a deadly weapon (bolo). However, the Court modified the penalty. Applying the law prior to the death penalty’s re-imposition under Republic Act No. 7659 , and considering that the crimes were committed in 1998 when the death penalty was not yet effective for rape where the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court sentenced accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and increased the award of civil indemnity to P75,000.00 and moral damages to P75,000.00 for each count.