G.R. No. 132923-24 - People vs. Mendoza

Marcelo Mendoza, the appellant, was charged with rape.
He was indicted for simple rape in two separate Informations filed on May 31, 1996.
The charges arose from two alleged incidents in Cavite: one on June 25, 1995, and another on August 11, 1995.

The victim, Michelle Tolentino, then 13 years old, was at Barangay Tubuan while doing laundry at a riverside setting.
As she was transporting her laundry, she passed through a coffee plantation where she encountered Mendoza.
Mendoza was observed watching her and then forcefully led her into the plantation’s dense area.
During the struggle, her clothing was forcibly removed—her shorts were torn and her panty sustained damage.
Mendoza, while holding a bolo at his side (which he later set aside), proceeded to rape her by forcibly inserting his penis.
The victim reported that despite her pleas and overt resistance, the assault continued until he warned her not to tell anyone.

A similar setting in the coffee plantation was reported, involving the same victim, who was still a minor.
Mendoza allegedly intimidated her with the bolo, raising concerns about the use of force once again.
The incident was reported by the victim in December 1995 after fearing a repetition of the assault.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized detailed testimonies that described the brutal manner in which the rapes were allegedly committed.
Michelle Tolentino’s testimony provided a step-by-step account of the forcible undressing, the assault, and the use of a bolo to instill fear—even though it was not actively used to inflict harm.
Medical evidence, as testified by Dr. Garcia dela Cruz, supported the presence of physical signs consistent with penetration.

The Public Attorney’s Office presented an alibi for Mendoza, citing his attendance at religious services on both dates.
Witnesses such as Maria Gumban and Joel Garcia testified regarding his whereabouts and activities, aiming to counter the prosecution’s narrative.
Mendoza himself testified, asserting that he was at mass on June 25 and, on August 11, had legitimate business and later participation in a religious service.
The defense disputed the credibility and consistency of the complainant’s statements, arguing that the charge of simple rape could not be elevated to qualified rape.

During arraignment on June 18, 1996, Mendoza pleaded not guilty.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, found him guilty on two counts of qualified rape, based on the alleged use of a deadly weapon (the bolo).
The RTC sentenced him to the extreme penalty of death in both criminal cases and ordered the payment of P30,000 as actual damages per count.
The decision was rendered amidst strong testimonial evidence from the complainant, which the trial court found “straightforward, convincing and credible.”

Whether Mendoza, charged with simple rape as per the Informations, can validly be convicted of qualified rape—an offense that carries the death penalty.
Whether the allegation of using a deadly weapon should have been expressly included from the onset.

Whether the trial court erred in imposing the extreme penalty of death when the Information did not allege the use of a deadly weapon (i.e., qualifying circumstance).

The issue of whether the testimony, particularly that of the victim regarding both incidents, was reliable and sufficient to establish all the elements of the alleged crimes.
The specific concern as to why the evidence supporting the June 25, 1995 incident was deemed credible while that for August 11, 1995 was considered insufficient.

Whether the civil award of P30,000 as actual damages was appropriate and how it should be adjusted in view of prevailing jurisprudence.