G.R. No. L-6969 - People vs. Ubina

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-6969)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Alleged offenses: June 25, 1995 and August 11, 1995.
Informations filed: May 31, 1996.
Arraignment: June 18, 1996 (plea: not guilty).
RTC decision convicting appellant of two counts of rape qualified by use of a deadly weapon and sentencing him to death: February 10, 1998 (decretal portion reproduced in the record).
Automatic review by the Supreme Court (decision summarized here) resulted in partial reversal and modification: one conviction reduced to simple rape with sentence of reclusion perpetua and civil damages; the other count acquitted.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution governs (decision date is 2002).
Statutory and doctrinal authorities invoked: Article 335, Revised Penal Code (simple rape); provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 concerning circumstances warranting death penalty (as discussed in the decision); Rule 110, Section 9 (requirements for alleging aggravating or qualifying circumstances in the Information); Article 63, Revised Penal Code (rules for application of indivisible penalties). Controlling precedents cited in the decision (e.g., People v. De la Cuesta, People v. Onabia) establish that aggravating/qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged and proved and that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense graver than that charged.

Charged Offenses and the Informations

Two separate Informations charged Marcelo Mendoza with rape: (a) Criminal Case No. TG-2597-96 alleged rape on or about June 25, 1995 (victim then 13) by means of force, violence, intimidation, and advantage of superior strength; (b) Criminal Case No. TG-2598-96 alleged rape on or about August 11, 1995 of the same victim, explicitly mentioning her age (13). Neither Information alleged the use of a deadly weapon nor otherwise pleaded qualifying circumstances that would elevate simple rape to qualified rape.

Prosecution’s Factual Theory and Evidence

The prosecution’s factual narrative, largely based on the victim’s testimony and medical examination, describes two incidents in Ben Salazar’s coffee plantation. On June 25, 1995, the victim was allegedly accosted, dragged into the plantation, threatened with a bolo carried by the assailant, stripped of shorts and panties during a violent struggle, and subjected to penile-vaginal penetration. The victim reported shouting and being unable to summon help because the location was isolated; she later disclosed the incidents to her mother in December 1995 and underwent medical examination. The physician (Dr. Garcia dela Cruz) testified that internal examination showed resistance on the vaginal canal and an admission of two fingers, which the physician interpreted as an indication of sexual intercourse.

Defense Version and Alibi Evidence

The defense presented testimony attempting to place the accused at religious gatherings in Marikina/Marikina Sports Complex and Rodriguez Sports Complex on the dates in question (June 25 and the overnight of August 11–12, 1995), with attendance lists and witness testimony describing his participation (playing guitar, singing). Family witnesses suggested motives for fabrication (allegations that the complainant stole money, family pressure to extort payment from the accused). The accused testified that he was away or at religious services on the relevant dates and denied the charges.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

The RTC credited the victim’s testimony as straightforward and credible and found that the assailant was armed with a bolo which he used to compel the victim’s submission. The RTC convicted Mendoza of rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon in both cases and sentenced him to death for each count, and awarded P30,000 as actual damages to each victim.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellant’s primary assignments of error were: (1) the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty (qualified rape) despite Informations charging only simple rape; and (2) the trial court erred in giving decisive weight to the complainant’s testimony when it was unconvincing, improbable, and inherently incredible.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Legal Principle on Notice and Degree of the Offense

The Court reaffirmed established doctrine that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense graver than that for which he was charged because that would violate the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and would deny due process. Aggravating and qualifying circumstances that elevate a crime must be categorically alleged in the Information (Rule 110, Section 9); absent such allegations, the court may not appreciate them to impose a heavier penalty. The Court cited People v. De la Cuesta and related authorities to conclude that Mendoza could not be convicted of rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon where the Informations charged only simple rape.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Whether a Deadly Weapon Was Used

Beyond the pleading defect, the Court examined the record facts regarding the bolo. The victim’s testimony indicated the bolo was at the assailant’s side and that he threatened her with it, but she also stated he did not use it or hold it actively when he undressed her and raped her. The Court observed that mere being armed or in possession of a bolo is insufficient to qualify rape as committed with a deadly weapon unless the weapon is actually used or actively employed to threaten or compel. Thus, even on the factual record, the qualifying circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon was not established in the degree necessary to sustain a conviction for qualified rape.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Credibility, Sufficiency of Evidence, and Distinction Between Counts

On credibility, the Court reiterated the principle that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect because the trial court personally observes witnesses. The Supreme Court found no compelling reason to overturn the RTC’s acceptance of the victim’s detailed account of the June 25, 1995 incident: her narrative of struggle, the tearing/damage to garments, the force used, and the physician’s findings of penetration provided corroboration sufficient to establish the elements of simple rape for that date. By contrast, the alleged August 11, 1995 incident was supported only by the victim’s bare assertion that she was raped on that date without detailed narrative or corroborating proof. The Court emphasized that a witness’s mere conclusion that she was raped on a specific date is not sufficient; the fact of carnal knowledge and force or intimidation must be proven by evidence. Applying the standard that prosecution evidence must stand on its own strength, the Court concluded that the August 11 allegation did not meet the required quantum of proof and therefore ordered acquittal on that count.

Application of Indivisible Penalty Doctrine and Reassessment of Sentence

Because the Informations did not plead qualifying circumstances and the record failed to establish the use of a deadly weapon, the Court held that Mendoza could not be punished with the death penalty for either count. The Court modified the conviction: Criminal Case No. TG-2597-96 (June 25, 1995) was downgraded to simple rape, for which the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua; Criminal Case No. TG-2598-96 (August 11, 1995) resulted in acquittal for failure of proof. The Court also rejected application of the “uninhabited place” aggr

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-6969)

Case Caption, Court, and Decision Information

Case reported at 432 Phil. 666, decided En Banc on June 06, 2002, G.R. Nos. 132923-24.
Title as taken from source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARCELO MENDOZA, APPELLANT.
Opinion delivered by Justice Panganiban.
The case is an automatic review of the Decision dated February 10, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, finding Marcelo Mendoza guilty of two counts of rape, each alleged to be qualified by the use of a deadly weapon.
The RTC decretal portion originally sentenced the accused to the extreme penalty of DEATH in both Criminal Case Nos. TG-2597-96 and TG-2598-96 and ordered indemnity of P30,000 to each victim (assailed decision as cited in the record).

Informations, Charges and Pleas

Two Informations were filed against Marcelo Mendoza on May 31, 1996, signed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Tito S. Carpina.
Criminal Case No. TG-2597-96 charged that on or about June 25, 1995, at Barangay Tubuan, Silang, Cavite, with lewd designs and by means of force, violence and intimidation, and taking advantage of superior strength, the accused wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of Michelle G. Tolentino against her will and consent.
Criminal Case No. TG-2598-96 charged that on or about August 11, 1995, at Barangay Tubuan, Silang, Cavite, and taking advantage of superior strength over Michelle G. Tolentino who was only thirteen years old, the accused wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of Michelle G. Tolentino against her will and consent.
Both Informations charged simple rape only; neither alleged qualifying circumstances such as use of a deadly weapon.
Upon arraignment on June 18, 1996, assisted by counsel Atty. Crisostomo Dario Jr., the accused pleaded not guilty.

Facts as Alleged by the Prosecution (Version of the Office of the Solicitor General)

Complainant Michelle Tolentino was 13 years old at the time of the incidents.
On June 25, 1995, Michelle and her aunt went to the river to wash clothes at about 7:00 a.m.; they finished about 2:00 p.m. Michelle proceeded to carry some clothes home, leaving her aunt in the river.
While passing through the coffee plantation of Ben Salazar, at a curve on the road, Michelle saw Marcelo Mendoza standing and watching her; he pulled her into the thickest part of the plantation.
Michelle struggled and pleaded; Mendoza persisted, pressed her wrist hard, and they reached a clearing several meters from the road.
Michelle was wearing shorts and a T-shirt; the accused forcefully removed her shorts and panty, tearing the middle portion of the shorts (pundilyo) and damaging the garter of her panty.
The accused pinned her down, removed his lower garments, and inserted his sex organ into her vagina; Michelle hollered but no one came because the place was isolated.
The accused threatened her with a bolo he was carrying; the bolo was placed aside when he raped her, and he warned her not to tell anyone.
The incident was alleged to have been repeated on August 11, 1995, inside the same coffee plantation, with similar intimidation and threats involving the bolo.
Michelle told her mother about the rapes sometime in December 1995, gave her complaint-statement the same day, and was referred to a physician for examination.
Dr. Garcia dela Cruz examined Michelle and opined that Michelle must have been raped because internal examination “admits two (2) fingers,” an indication of sexual intercourse (physician’s finding of penetration).

Facts as Alleged by the Defense (Version of the Public Attorney’s Office)

Maria Gumban, a preacher in the Jesus Miracle Crusade (JMC), testified that Marcelo Mendoza was a member and that on June 25, 1995 they held the Last Holy Supper Service at Rodriguez Sports Complex in Marikina from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; Mendoza was present, played guitar and sang, and his name appeared on the attendance list of twenty-four persons who rode a ten-sitter passenger jeep.
Maria Gumban testified that after the celebration Mendoza and his wife stayed home and practiced singing and playing guitar all night without sleeping.
The defense also presented testimony that every Friday the JMC holds an “overnight” ceremony from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.; August 11, 1995 was a Friday and the overnight ceremony was held at the Marikina Sports Complex with Mendoza’s name on the attendance list.
Joel Garcia testified that Michelle Tolentino is his sister-in-law, that Michelle and her parents came to his house on the morning of August 11, 1995 and left at about 6:00 p.m., and that he learned of the accusations on the evening of December 11, 1995.
Joel Garcia testified to statements he heard that Michelle allegedly stole P3,000 from Emma Mendoza and that Bernardo Garcia urged Michelle’s parents to file a rape case so that the accused would pay money allegedly stolen; that Michelle did not initially agree but was pressured by her father.
Marcelo Mendoza testified he was at the Sports Center in Marikina attending Mass on June 25, 1995, left Tubuan, Silang, Cavite at 8:00–9:00 a.m., and on August 11, 1995 he left early to meet a buyer at Adamson University, was home at 5:00 p.m. and then went with religious colleagues to Marikina to attend an overnight service.
Mendoza testified he knew Michelle as a neighbor and could not understand why he was charged; he alleged that Michelle’s parents were extorting money from him because he obtained a commission from selling land and that his sister told him Michelle’s parents were asking for 1.5 million pesos.

Trial Court’s Findings and Ruling

The RTC believed the testimony of Michelle Tolentino, finding it straightforward, convincing and credible.
The RTC found that Mendoza “was armed with a bolo which he used to cause private complainant Michelle Tolentino to submit to his carnal desires” on June 25, 1995 and August 11, 1995.
Based on such findings, the RTC convicted Mendoza of rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon for both charged dates and imposed the death penalty for each count; it also ordered indemnity of P30,000.00 to the victim in each case.
The RTC Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Alfonso S. Garcia (as noted in the record).

Assignments of Error on Appeal

Appellant’s