G.R. No. 205382 , April 2, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Mauricio Hallarte y Mendoza, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mauricio Hallarte y Mendoza was charged with two crimes: Simple Rape (Criminal Case No. Q-00-93225) for allegedly having carnal knowledge with his 7-year-old niece, AAA, on June 4, 2000; and Rape by Sexual Assault (Criminal Case No. Q-00-93226) for allegedly inserting his penis into the mouth of his 8-year-old niece, BBB, on June 17, 2000. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The parties stipulated on the minority of both complainants during pre-trial. AAA testified that while playing at appellant’s house, appellant dragged her, removed his shorts, raised her skirt, pulled down her underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing pain. BBB testified that appellant inserted his penis into her mouth and threatened her. AAA’s medico-legal report showed “normal genital findings” with no hymenal laceration, but the doctor clarified this did not exclude sexual abuse. Appellant denied the charges, presenting an alibi that he was at work as a carpenter in Novaliches on June 4 and at the Vanguard Agency in Kalayaan on June 17, corroborated by his employer and a co-worker. The RTC convicted appellant, giving full credence to the complainants’ testimonies and rejecting the alibi due to the lack of physical impossibility (workplaces were only 1 to 1.5 hours away from the crime scene). The RTC did not appreciate the qualifying circumstance of relationship as it was not specifically alleged in the Informations. The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for Rape by Sexual Assault and increased the damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for the crimes of Simple Rape and Rape by Sexual Assault.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions with modifications. The Court upheld the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, emphasizing that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight. The testimonies of the child-victims were given full credit, as youth and immaturity are badges of truth. The Court found appellant’s alibi weak for failing to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene. For Simple Rape (Criminal Case No. Q-00-93225), the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. However, for Rape by Sexual Assault (Criminal Case No. Q-00-93226), the penalty was modified. The Court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove BBB’s minority with independent evidence (like a birth certificate), despite the allegation in the Information and the stipulation during pre-trial. Consequently, the crime was prosecuted under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code (Rape by Sexual Assault), not under Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The proper penalty is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for both crimes were increased to ₱75,000.00, ₱75,000.00, and ₱30,000.00, respectively.