People v. Mercado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 13, 1997, a twelve-year-old girl, Melinda Mercado, went to her uncle Conrado Mercado's bamboo hut to return a bolo. Accused-appellant pulled her inside, tied her hands and feet, gagged her mouth, and forced her to lie down. He then pointed a knife at her breast and had sexual intercourse with her five times over a six-hour period. Melinda was able to untie herself at midnight and fled, reporting the incident to her mother. An eyewitness, Melinda's cousin Larry Torralba, corroborated the events leading up to the rape, having seen accused-appellant pull Melinda into the hut and peeped through a hole to witness the tying and gagging. Procedural History: The victim reported the incident to the barangay captain and the police. Medical examinations were conducted, and physical evidence, including the t-shirt used for gagging, Melinda's panties, the kitchen knife, and the nylon rope, were recovered from the accused-appellant's hut. An Information for rape was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, La Union. The RTC convicted accused-appellant of rape, sentencing him to death and ordering him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed the decision, but only questioned the imposition of the death penalty, arguing that the qualifying circumstance of the victim being a relative within the third degree of consanguinity was not alleged in the Information. He prayed for the penalty to be modified to reclusion perpetua, a prayer joined by the Solicitor General.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty when the qualifying circumstance of the victim being a relative within the third degree of consanguinity was not alleged in the Information. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether moral damages should be awarded to the victim.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Conrado Mercado for rape but modified the penalty. The death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court also ordered accused-appellant to pay the victim an additional P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the death penalty and the allegation in the Information: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. For the death penalty to be imposable under Article 335 (now Article 266-B) of the Revised Penal Code, both the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be specifically alleged in the Information. It is not sufficient that the relationship was proven during the trial. The Court cited People v. Garcia (281 SCRA 463 [1997]) to emphasize that qualifying circumstances, which increase the penalty by degree, must be properly pleaded in the information to comply with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him. Failure to do so constitutes a denial of due process. Therefore, accused-appellant could only be convicted of simple rape, the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua. On the sufficiency of proof of guilt: The Supreme Court found that the prosecution sufficiently proved accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's testimony was described as categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank, remaining consistent even on cross-examination and being natural and consistent with the normal course of things. The Court reiterated the axiom that the lone testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to support a conviction, and even more so when corroborated by other evidence. The eyewitness testimony of Larry Torralba, while not witnessing the actual rape, provided circumstantial proof that, together with the recovered articles of clothing and rope, tended to prove the commission of the crime. The defense of denial and alibi offered by accused-appellant was considered inherently weak and could not prevail over the victim's positive declaration and the corroborating evidence. On the award of moral damages: The Supreme Court ruled that the victim should be awarded moral damages in addition to the civil indemnity. The Court stated that moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are awarded to victims of simple rape without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof, as the trauma and suffering are obvious. The Court noted that there was proof that Melinda suffered mental anguish and had to stop going to school due to embarrassment and shame. Therefore, an additional P50,000.00 for moral damages was awarded.
Main Doctrine
For the death penalty to be imposable under Article 335 (now Article 266-B) of the Revised Penal Code, both the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be specifically alleged in the Information, not merely proven during trial. Failure to do so warrants conviction for simple rape, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.