G.R. Nos. 146693-94 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROLANDO MENDOZA, JR. Y DELA CRUZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, this Court finds accused, ROLANDO MENDOZA (sic) Y DE LA CRUZ guilty for the qualified crime of rape in two (2) counts under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, and thereby sentences him to two (2) extreme and supreme penalties of DEATH, and to pay moral damages of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages to the victim, Mona Liza Mendoza, and to pay costs . (Emphasis in the original) Appellant thus assigns as errors of the trial court the following: [13] THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIMES CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ALLEGE THE MINORITY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IN THE ACCUSATORY PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT. Maintaining his innocence, appellant attributes ill-motive to Monaliza's grandmother [14] who, by his claim, sometimes got angry at him for going home late, she telling him "that there are some young men or boys who frequented our place." [15] Appellant attributes ill-motive too to Monaliza arising from his threats to kill her if it turned out that she was indeed pregnant. [16] The defense counsel, during the cross examination of Monaliza, attempted to establish that no rape on April 2, 1996 could have possibly taken place because of Marigilda's presence. [17] Parental punishment, however, does not suffice to prod a daughter, who is of tender age, to falsely accuse her father of rape. [18] It takes depravity for a young girl to concoct a story of defloration against her putative father, unless she had really been aggrieved. [19] And it is hard to believe that a grandmother would expose her granddaughter, a young and innocent girl, to the humiliation and stigma of a rape trial simply to get back at the accused unless the rape charges were true. [20] As for the presence of Marigilda during the April 2, 1996 incident, it is not impossible, nor incredible, for her to have been in deep slumber while the sexual assault on Monaliza was taking place. [21] Lust, after all, does not respect either time or place, [22] nor the presence of people nearby. [23] As for the defense counsel's attempt to establish during the cross-examination of Dr. Renacia that appellant could not have raped Monaliza on April 2, 1996 and May 16, 1996, given Monaliza's giving birth to a baby girl on October 29, 1996, [24] after the lapse of less than seven (7) months from the first rape incident, [25] the same fails. The record does not disclose any claim by Monaliza that it was on account of the rape subject of the first information that she became pregnant. As Dr. Renacia recalled on direct examination, Monaliza had revealed to her that she had been sexually abused by her father several times. Q Now, when she consulted you on July 23, 1996, will you kindly inform the Honorable Court what