People v Alfredo (2010; Velasco)

Facts (ver Prosecution): AAA, who was six months pregnant, went home to Butiyao, Benguet, along with her family, to harvest the peppers planted in their garden The following month, AAA and her son, BBB, returned to their sayote plantation in Cadian, Topdac, Atok, Benguet to harvest sayote (w/c was transported to Baguio the next day) Later that night she and her son stayed at their rented shack and went to sleep early, but as they slept AAA was awakened by a beam of light coming from the gaps in the walls of the shack directly illuminating her face. She asked who it was but nobody answered, and the light was turned off. A few minutes later however, the light was back on again, and a male voice shouted You better come out if you will not come out I will riddle you with bullets. AAA remained seated. Then, the male voice uttered, You better get out or else I will count, one, two AAA immediately woke BBB up. Just then, the male voice said, I will explode the bullet. (lol, yan tlga yung translation sa case) AAA cried out of fear. Afraid the man would kill her son, AAA lit the gas lamp placed on top of the table, and opened the door while her son stood beside it. When the door opened, she saw accused directly in front of her holding a flashlight. AAA did not immediately recognize accused (his hair was long and was covering his face). She invited him to come inside the shack, but the latter immediately held her hair and ordered her to walk uphill. She obeyed, and he walked closely behind her. When they reached a sloping ground, accused asked AAA to stop, put the flashlight in his pocket, and asked AAA to strip. AAA refused, so accused punched her left eye and forcibly removed her clothes. AAA resisted but was slapped in the face for it. Completely naked, AAA continued her walk uphill. Upon reaching a grassy portion and a stump about one foot high, accused ordered AAA to stop, punched her on her thigh, then told her to lie on top of the stump. He then bent down and spread open AAAs legs. After directing the beam of the flashlight on AAAs naked body, accused removed his pants and inserted his penis into her vagina. He threatened to box her if she moves. He touched her breasts as well as other parts of her body as he satisfied himself. Once he was done he stood up and directed his flashlight at her. Ten minutes later he insert his penis into her vagina again and repeats the act. He tries to do it a third time, but he was flaccid already so he inserts his fingers into her vagina instead.

He found that unsatisfying and inserted a twig aout 10 inches long (and the size of a small finger in diameter). But he also found that unsatisfying so he inserted his flashlight instead. After removing the flashlight, he went on top of her again, pressing his elbows on her upper breasts and boxing her shoulders and thighs. He then got up, threatened her so that she wouldn't tell the authorities, and left. Since she was too weak to walk, AAA rested for about 15 minutes before she got up and went back to the shack where she immediately woke her son up. Thereafter, they proceeded to the highway and boarded a jeep to Camp 30, Atok, Benguet. She also went to Sayangan, Atok, Benguet the following day to report the incident to the police authorities. Results of Medical Examination: (Dr. Ged-ang found) AAA had a subconjunctival hemorrhage on the right eye and multiple head injuries, which may have been caused by force such as a blow, a punch, or a hard object hitting the eye. There was also tenderness on the upper part of the back of AAA, as well as on her left infraclavicular area below the left clavicle, left flank area or at the left side of the waist, and medial aspect on the inner part of the thigh. multiple linear abrasions, or minor straight open wounds on the skin of her forearms and legs caused by sharp objects with rough surface. confluent abrasion on the left and medial aspects of her labia minora about five centimeters long and a confluent circular abrasion caused by a blunt, rough object that has been forcibly introduced into the genitalia

Facts (ver Defense): Accused caught AAA stealing sayote from his family's plantation, he says he merely confronted her at the shack about this in a non-threatening manner, and then went back to his house supposedly around 5pm, watched tv with his family and slept at around 10pm.

Lower Court Rulings: 2 Actions filed in RTC, rulings of w/c are: first case filed-->Accused = guilty beyond reasonable doubt, reclusion perpetua second case filed--> Accused = guilty beyond reasonable doubt, indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of three (3) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, and eight (8) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum

CA: Affirmed RTC rulings

ISSUES: (1) WoN alibi should be appreciated because of the material inconsistencies in the claims of the witnesses for the prosecution NO , alibi should not be appreciated (2) WoN it was wrong to the decision to have relied on the prosecution's witnesses considering the ponente of the decision did not hear the witnesses NO, it was not wrong (3) Is the client guilty beyond reasonable doubt YES

HELD:

(1) NO, alibi should not be appreciated. For an alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in another place when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak especially in light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.

Accused-appellant contends that there were material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in the latters respective affidavits, however, SC says there aren't really inconsistencies: (1) on whether accused-appellants penis was erect or not, in her testimony in court AAA mentioned he already inserted his penis twice before it softened making him unable to enter again, he affidavit just mentions it going soft, but that's not inconsistent w/ her testimony; and (2) on whether AAA indeed recognized accused-appellant when they were already on the mountain or while they were still in the shack, in her affidavit AA said she only found out it was the accused when she saw his face illuminated by the flashlight in the mountain, this is not incompatible with her testimony, she merely said she was had some idea that it was him, she only knew for sure in the mountain as she stated in her affidavit.

(2) NO, it was not wrong. The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial, but merely relied on the records of the case, does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion.

(3) YES. In reviewing the evidence in rape cases, the following considerations should be made: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense (it is also worth noting that rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or secrecy; thus, it is most often only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of forced coitus).

In the present case the prosecution has sufficiently established the existence of all the elements of rape via AAA's testimony. Further, the medical examination of Dr. Ged-ang corroborated the testimony of AAA, and the police also found the red t-shirt and blue shorts of AAA in the place where accused-appellant was said to have removed her clothes. BBB's testimony as to how accused-appellant threatened them in that evening, and how he was able to identify accused-appellant as the perpetrator, and what his mother looked like when she returned home in the early morning (he said his mother was naked except for a dirty white jacket she was wearing, and had wounds and blood all over her body, all these are consistent with the testimony of AAA).

CA decision affirmed (w/ modifications as to damages awarded)