Case Digest (G.R. No. 109780)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Bernaldez @ Dolfo, G.R. No. 109780, August 17, 1998, Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant is Rodolfo Bernaldez (alias Dolfo); the complaint was filed by Pedro B. Bernaldez, father of the victim Maria Teresa Bernaldez, who was then ten years old. A complaint for rape was filed before the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Polangui-Libon, Albay in September 1990; Rodolfo was arrested and detained. After a finding of probable cause by the MCTC, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an information with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Ligao, Albay, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2763, alleging that on the morning of August 29, 1990 Rodolfo, with lewd design, had carnal knowledge of his 10‑year‑old niece.
At arraignment Rodolfo pleaded not guilty. At trial the prosecution presented the victim and her father; the examining physician, Dr. Maria Nancy de la Paz, did not testify (her subpoena was returned unserved because she had resigned). The defense presented Rodolfo and two witnesses (an overseer at the rice mill and the victim’s teacher) who claimed alibi and school attendance. The victim testified in detail, positively identifying Rodolfo and describing repeated sexual assaults culminating on August 29, 1990; she had earlier executed sworn statements and underwent a medical examination resulting in a medical certificate.
On January 19, 1993 the RTC convicted Rodolfo of rape beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered payment of P50,000 as moral and exemplary damages, and costs. The trial court gave weight to the victim’s identification, found no motive to fabricate, treated the specific date as non‑material under the rules on pleading time, and relied on the medical certificate despite the doctor’s nonappearance (presuming regularity of public acts).
Because the penalty imposed authorized appeal to the Supreme Court, the appeal should have been lodged directly to the Court. Instead, the record was initially transmitted to the Court of Appeals and thereafter forwarded to the Supreme Court on April 23, 1993. Counsel filed an appellant’s brief belatedly on March 27, 1996 after being sanctioned. Rodolfo argued (1) he was convicted of multiple rape though the information charged a single rape; (2) the information was defective as to time and thus deprived him of adequate opportunity to prepare his defense; and (3) his alibi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the information deficient for failing to state the time of the offense with such precision as to deprive the accused of the opportunity to prepare his defense?
- Was the conviction of rape supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt despite the defense of alibi and contrary testimony about the victim’s presence at school?
- Could the trial court properly give weight to the medical certificate despite the doctor’s nonappearance, an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)