G.R. No. 169077 , August 31, 2006
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Nicanor Salome, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Nicanor Salome, was charged with the rape of thirteen-year-old Sally Idanan. The prosecution alleged that in July 1997, Salome entered the victim’s house in Barangay Lourdes, Pandan, Catanduanes, while she was sleeping. He poked a knife at her neck, threatened to kill her and her family, undressed her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge. Fearful of the threats, Sally did not immediately report the incident. She later left for Manila to work and, upon confirming her pregnancy in November 1997, finally reported the rape to the police.
The defense presented an alibi, with Salome claiming he was fishing in Gigmoto, Catanduanes, on three days in July 1997, corroborated by two companions. The Regional Trial Court convicted Salome of rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon and committed in the victim’s dwelling, imposing the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the civil liabilities. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Sally Idanan, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her detailed account of the rape, including the use of a knife and specific threats, was deemed sufficient to establish the elements of rape through force and intimidation. The medical findings of a healed hymenal laceration and her pregnancy corroborated her claim of sexual intercourse. The Court held that the victim’s initial silence and delay in reporting, due to fear for her and her family’s safety as threatened by the armed appellant, was justified and did not undermine her credibility.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of his being at the crime scene. The defense witnesses only confirmed Salome’s fishing activities but admitted they did not know his whereabouts afterward. Furthermore, Gigmoto and Pandan are within the same province, negating any physical impossibility. The positive identification by the victim, who knew the appellant as a former neighbor, prevailed over the weak alibi. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 , which prohibited the death penalty, the Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were affirmed.