Case Digest (G.R. No. 130627)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hector Alviz, G.R. Nos. 144551-55, June 29, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Corona, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant is Hector Alviz; the victim-complainant is his daughter, Hazel Alviz; the appellee is People of the Philippines. Alviz was charged in five informations with two counts of rape (Criminal Case Nos. 214-95 and 215-95) and three counts of acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 (Criminal Case Nos. 211-95, 212-95, 213-95). He pleaded not guilty when arraigned on September 20, 1995, and trial followed before Branch 74, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Presiding Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala.
Hazel testified to repeated sexual assaults by her father between February 1993 and August 1994, describing fondling, kissing with insertion of tongue, digital penetration, and forced vaginal intercourse on specified dates (including November 2, 1993 and August 6, 1994). She recounted fear of reporting because of her father’s violence toward the family, eventual flight from home, shelter and counseling at CFS, and a medico-legal examination showing shallow, healed hymenal lacerations at the 6 and 9 o’clock positions and a non-virgin state. Social worker Rubilyn Domingo corroborated aspects of the complaint process and counseling. Alviz denied the charges, argued the acts could not have occurred unnoticed, suggested fabrication by others, and elicited from Hazel later courtroom testimony that she had forgiven her parents after giving birth in 1999.
On March 20, 2000 the RTC convicted Alviz: guilty of three counts of violation of R.A. No. 7610 (each sentenced to six years prision correccional) and guilty of rape in Criminal Case No. 214-95 (death penalty; P75,000 civil indemnity) and Criminal Case No. 215-95 (reclusion perpetua; P75,000 civil indemnity). The case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review (the RTC imposed death as penalty in one count), and the Court considered appellant’s contentions that Hazel’s testimony was incredible and insufficiently corrobora...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in convicting appellant on the basis of the complainant’s testimony—i.e., was Hazel’s testimony credible and sufficient despite the lack of eye-witness corroboration?
- Did the prosecution prove consummated rape in Criminal Case Nos. 214-95 and 215-95 (was there proof of penetration)?
- Was imposition of the death penalty in Criminal Case No. 214-95 proper given the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove the victim’s minority and ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)