GR 152279; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152279 ; January 20, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. FRANCO BALLESTER, Appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Franco Ballester, was charged with the rape of twelve-year-old Maricel Odoño. The prosecution alleged that in the third week of January 1999, at noontime in the victim’s home in Guinobatan, Albay, appellant entered the house armed with a knife. He threatened the victim, who was alone with her toddler brother, forcibly undressed her, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. The victim reported the incident months later, leading to a medical examination which revealed a healed hymenal laceration. The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming appellant was working as a coconut picker in another location during the entire month of the alleged incident. He suggested the accusation was motivated by a prior failed extortion attempt by the victim’s family against his grandfather in an unrelated case.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. The Court upheld the credibility of the victim’s testimony, which was candid, consistent, and worthy of belief. The delay in reporting the rape was sufficiently explained by the victim’s young age and legitimate fear of the appellant’s threats. The medical findings, while not conclusive of rape, were consistent with her account. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated; it could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. However, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. The Information alleged the use of a knife, a qualifying circumstance that raises the penalty to reclusion perpetua to death. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when no other aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, the lesser penalty must be applied. The generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling was erroneously appreciated, as dwelling is inherent in the allegation of the crime committed inside the victim’s house and was not proven to have been deliberately sought. Thus, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Consequently, civil indemnity was reduced from P75,000 to P50,000, with an additional P50,000 in moral damages.