G.R. No. 97611 August 10, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO TALENTO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rogelio Talento was charged with two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape against his legitimate daughter, Shiela Talento. The Regional Trial Court, after a joint trial, convicted him of rape in Criminal Case No. Z-581 for an incident “on or about the month of November, 1988,” and acquitted him in the other two cases. The prosecution evidence showed that in November 1988, while Shiela was living in her paternal grandparents’ house with her father and brothers, she was awakened at midnight by her father who placed his knees on her thighs, held her hands, covered her mouth, and raped her, causing her to lose consciousness. She later found blood and a sticky substance in her private parts. Her father threatened to kill her if she told anyone. She was raped three more times that month at weekly intervals. In May 1990, after another attempted assault, she reported the incidents to her friend Agapita Arnaiz, a church minister, and the police. A medical examination revealed old hymenal lacerations. The defense relied on alibi, claiming Shiela was not living with them in November 1988 and that the small room where they slept made rape impossible. The trial court found the alibi unsupported and the room conditions did not preclude the crime.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Rogelio Talento of rape based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that the complainant’s positive identification of her father as the rapist prevailed over his defense of alibi. The Court noted there was sufficient illumination from the moon for identification, and the appellant was extremely familiar to the victim. The medico-legal finding of old hymenal lacerations did not negate the 1988 rape, as such wounds heal in about a week and the report stated they could have been inflicted “a week or more” before the May 1990 examination. The Court rejected the appellant’s insinuation that the complainant lost her virginity to another, finding no motive for her to falsely accuse her father. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, particularly the complainant’s credible and emotional testimony and the appellant’s evasive and guilty demeanor, was accorded great respect. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and award of moral damages were affirmed.