FACTS:

Accused-appellant, Rolando Mendoza, was charged with two counts of qualified rape against his daughter, Monaliza Mendoza. The first incident allegedly took place on April 2, 1996, while the second incident allegedly occurred on May 16, 1996. Monaliza's mother, Marigilda, became suspicious of Monaliza's condition and brought her to a hilot who suspected that she might be pregnant. Monaliza was then taken to the hospital for a medical examination. Appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he could not have committed rape on the said dates because he was either working or with other people during those times.

The trial court found appellant guilty of two counts of qualified rape and sentenced him to death. Appellant appealed the decision, arguing that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the death penalty should not be imposed since the minority of the private complainant was not alleged in the complaint. The defense also attempted to establish ill-motive on the part of Monaliza and her grandmother, but the court found their claims unconvincing. The trial court considered Monaliza's revelation to the examining doctor that she had been sexually abused by her father several times.

Furthermore, as part of the investigation, Monaliza was examined by a physician who testified in court. The physician stated that she asked Monaliza about the dates when the abuse occurred. However, Monaliza had difficulty recalling the specific dates, so the physician did not include them in her medical certificate. During cross-examination, the physician admitted that Monaliza disclosed that she had been abused by her father multiple times, but the exact dates were not remembered.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the impregnation of the victim is an element of rape.

2. Whether the failure of the victim to immediately report the incidents affects her credibility.

3. Whether the elements of rape are present in both incidents.

4. Whether the testimony of the victim is credible.

5. Whether the defense of alibi is credible.

6. Whether the penalty of death was correctly imposed.

7. Whether the information sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstances in the body or accusatory portion of the information.

8. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstance of the relationship between the accused and the victim.

9. Whether the trial court properly awarded damages to the victim.

RULING:

1. The impregnation of a woman is not an element of rape. The occurrence of sexual assault, committed through force or intimidation, is what constitutes the crime of rape. Therefore, even if the victim was already pregnant at the time of the rapes, it does not exculpate the accused from the charges of rape.

2. The failure of the victim to immediately report the incidents does not undermine the credibility of her testimony. It is common for young and immature victims to conceal the rape committed against them, especially when the perpetrator threatens their life. The credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial in rape cases, as only the participants can testify to its occurrence.

3. Yes, the elements of rape are present in both incidents as established by the testimony of the victim.

4. Yes, the testimony of the victim is credible as it is positive, categorical, and consistent.

5. No, the defense of alibi is not credible as it lacks strong evidence to prove the presence of the accused in another place at the time of the crime.

6. No, the penalty of death was not correctly imposed as the prosecution failed to allege the minority of the victim in the complaints.

7. The information failed to sufficiently allege the qualifying circumstances in the body or accusatory portion of the information. The omission of important details, such as the age of the victim, in the body of the information is prejudicial to the accused's right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against him.

8. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstance of the relationship between the accused and the victim. The mere testimony of the victim and the admission of the accused do not suffice to prove the relationship. The fact that appellant is the father of the victim needs to be established by competent and independent evidence.

9. The trial court failed to award civil indemnity and to specify the amount of exemplary damages. Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the finding of the commission of rape, and moral damages are assumed to be suffered by the victim. Exemplary damages can only be imposed when the aggravating circumstance is proven with moral certainty, which the prosecution failed to do.

PRINCIPLES:

• The computation of the whole period of gestation in determining the exact date of fertilization is problematic and uncertain. There is no means of determining the exact date of fertilization with certainty, as evidence derived from pregnancy following a single coitus is trustworthy but there is no synchrony between coitus and fertilization.

• In criminal cases for rape, the identity of the father of the victim's child and the victim's pregnancy are non-issues. What matters is the occurrence of the sexual assault committed by the accused.

• The conviction or acquittal in rape cases largely depends on the credibility of the complainant's testimony, given that usually only the participants can testify as to its occurrence.

• Consent is negated when there is force, threat, or intimidation present in the act of sexual intercourse.

• Denial as a defense is inherently weak and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to be given credence.

• In order for an alibi to prosper, two elements must be proven: the presence of the accused at another place and the physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime.

• Flight can be considered as evidence of guilt, especially when coupled with other circumstances.

• The penalty of death cannot be imposed when the prosecution fails to allege the minority of the victim in the complaints.

• The real nature of the criminal charge is determined from the actual recital of the facts in the body of the information, not the caption or preamble.

• An accused cannot be convicted based on stipulations or his own admissions alone, especially when facing the penalty of death.

• The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be alleged and proved with certainty for the death penalty to be imposed.

• Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon finding of the commission of rape.

• Moral damages are assumed to be suffered by the victim in cases of rape.

• Exemplary damages can only be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances proved with moral certainty.