FACTS:

The accused, Wilfredo Onabia, was charged with multiple counts of rape against the complainant, Raquel Eballe, who was a minor at the time. The incidents allegedly took place on different dates in the Municipality of Salvador Benedicto, Province of Negros Occidental. The complainant claimed that the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her against her will, using force and intimidation. The accused denied the charges and asserted that they were made up out of retaliation for a dispute he had with the complainant's elder brother. Following the trial, the accused was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. On appeal, the accused raised several issues, including the qualification of one rape charge due to the use of a deadly weapon, the credibility of the complainant, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the use of a deadly weapon qualifies the crime of rape.

2. Whether the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, abuse of confidence, and lack of respect on account of age and relationship should be appreciated.

3. Whether the testimony of the complainant is credible

4. Whether the defense of alibi is acceptable

5. Whether rape can be committed in unlikely places

6. Whether the delay in reporting the incidents of rape is justified

7. Whether or not the testimony of the private complainant was credible.

8. Whether or not the appellant's version of events should be believed.

RULING:

1. The use of a deadly weapon does not qualify the crime of rape. While the accused was carrying a bolo, he never used it to threaten the victim, and the threats made were not accompanied by the use of the bolo. The case cited by the prosecution, People v. Lamberte, is not applicable as it involved the commission of rape by two or more persons, not the use of a deadly weapon.

2. The court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, abuse of confidence, and lack of respect on account of age and relationship. These circumstances were not mentioned in the complaint or information, violating the accused's right to be fully informed of the charges against him. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence to establish the deliberate taking advantage of superior strength, the facilitation of the offense by abuse of confidence, or the deliberate intention to offend or insult the victim's age.

3. The court finds the testimony of the complainant credible. Her straightforward account, voluntary submission to medical examination, and willingness to undergo public trial indicate her sincerity and motivation to have the culprit apprehended and punished.

4. The defense of alibi fails. The positive identification made by the complainant is stronger than the negative testimony of the accused.

5. Rape can be committed even in unlikely places. Lust is not limited by time and place, and rape can occur in places where people congregate, parks, along the roadside, within school premises, or even inside a house where there are other occupants or family members sleeping.

6. The delay in reporting the incidents of rape is justified due to the threats made by the accused to the complainant on all four occasions.

7. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and found the accused-appellant guilty of rape without any of the qualifying circumstances. The court also ordered the accused-appellant to pay an additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages in each of the four cases.

PRINCIPLES:

• The accused has a constitutional right to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.

• The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength requires the deliberate taking advantage of such strength.

• The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence requires the confidence to have facilitated the commission of the offense.

• The aggravating circumstance of lack of respect on account of age requires deliberate intention to offend or insult the age of the victim.

• Relationships by stepbrother and stepsister do not qualify rape under the Revised Penal Code.

• The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. This is crucial in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses.

• Credibility of witnesses is crucial in determining the truth in conflicting testimonies.

• The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that would materially affect the disposition of the case.