G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO MENDOZA, alias RODEL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of April 20, 1974, complainant Lolita Domingo was alone in her house in Tolosa, Leyte, nursing her infant. Appellant Rodolfo Mendoza, whom she had known for three years, entered her room. He went on top of her, pointed a homemade ice pick at her side, and ordered her to remove her slacks and panties. When she hesitated, he covered her face with a blanket, placed a pillow over it, and maintained the threat with the ice pick. He then succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her despite her resistance. Afterward, he fled through a window. Lolita immediately reported the rape to responding neighbors and police, and later submitted to a medical examination which concluded she had been cohabited recently.
The accused denied the charge, interposing an alibi. He claimed he was at his father’s farm in Barrio Langit, Alang-Alang, Leyte, approximately seven kilometers away, from April 19 to 21, 1974, due to illness. The defense also suggested the charge was fabricated due to an inheritance dispute between their families. The trial court convicted Mendoza of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the complainant’s testimony and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The resolution of the case depended entirely on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony. The Court found her account credible and consistent. Her failure to shout or offer more vigorous physical resistance was deemed understandable given the direct threat to her and her infant from a deadly weapon. The act of removing her slacks under such a threat, especially as they were already unhooked, was not incredible. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim, who knew the appellant for years. Furthermore, the claimed location was only seven kilometers from the crime scene, failing to prove the physical impossibility of his presence.
The Court noted the Solicitor General’s observation that the trial court erred in not considering the proven aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling, which were not alleged in the information. The Court clarified that only qualifying circumstances must be alleged; aggravating circumstances proven at trial may be considered. With two aggravating circumstances and the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty should have been death. However, due to lack of the necessary votes, the death penalty could not be imposed. The Court thus affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua but modified the civil liability, increasing the indemnity to P12,000.00.