G.R. No. 82233 - Baritua vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves the charge of rape committed by the accused, known both as Nicanor Salome and Canor Sabeniano, against Sally Idanan, a minor of thirteen years old at the time of the offense.
An information was filed on February 18, 1998, based on Sally’s complaint, and an amended information later accused the appellant under both names.
The offense was alleged to have occurred between July 1, 1997 and July 31, 1997 in Barangay Lourdes, Municipality of Pandan, Province of Catanduanes.

According to the complaint, on a morning in July 1997, while Sally Idanan (then thirteen) was asleep with her three-year-old brother in her own house, the accused entered the premises.
The accused, armed with a bladed weapon (a knife), allegedly approached the victim and, using force and intimidation, undressed her and forced her into submission.
Sally testified that the accused threatened to kill her and her family should she disclose the incident, and that she closed her eyes during the ordeal out of fear.
The incident is further characterized by the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed inside the victim’s dwelling.

Sally Idanan provided a detailed narration of the incident to the trial court, affirming that she had known the accused as a neighbor but experienced the rape when she was asleep.
She did not call for help at the time due to fear that no one was nearby and later discovered she was pregnant.
Sally reported the incident to the police on November 17, 1997, after a pelvic ultrasound, conducted on November 12, 1997, confirmed her pregnancy.
Her testimony was supported by the medico-legal report of Dr. Anthony Joselito Llamas and further explained by the Medical Legal Officer, Ma. Luz T. Santos.

The primary evidence was the victim’s consistent and detailed testimony recounting the use of force and the presence of a deadly weapon.
Medical evidence highlighted physical injuries such as a deep, healed laceration of the hymen and other findings consistent with the alleged sexual assault.

The accused denied the rape and introduced an alibi asserting that he was fishing at sea on three separate occasions in July 1997.
His fishing companions, Salvador Villarey and Manny Torralba, corroborated that they fished with him intermittently, yet confirmed that they were unaware of his activities afterwards.

The Regional Trial Court in Virac, Catanduanes, convicted the accused of rape and imposed the death penalty along with additional civil liabilities for support and indemnity.
The accused raised two errors on appeal: (a) the trial court’s acceptance of what he termed the “unconvincing” testimony of Sally Idanan and (b) the appreciation of “dwelling” as an aggravating circumstance.
The Court of Appeals, while modifying the award for civil indemnity (increased from P50,000 to P75,000) and ordering additional moral and exemplary damages, affirmed the conviction.

The crime of rape is defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, particularly when committed with force or intimidation and with the use of a deadly weapon.
Dwelling was recognized as an aggravating circumstance, thus justifying the imposition of a harsher penalty.
With the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, the imposition of the death penalty was abolished. Consequently, the appellant’s death sentence was converted to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Whether the trial court erred in affording significant weight to the testimony of Sally Idanan, particularly considering her age and the nature of the incident.
Whether the victim’s delayed report undermines her credibility and the veracity of her account.

Whether dwelling, as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of rape within the victim’s house, was properly appreciated by the trial court.
Whether the absence of provocation on the part of the victim sufficiently negates any mitigating considerations regarding the use of force and intimidation.

Whether the accused’s claim of being engaged in fishing on three separate days sufficiently demonstrates that he could not have been present at the scene of the crime on any of the days of the alleged offense.
Whether the corroborative testimony of the defense’s fishing companions effectively negates the possibility of his involvement in the crime during the remainder of the month.