A.C. No. 5001 - Sismaet vs. Cruzabra

On February 11, 1984, at around 12:00 noon at Barangay Bayaan, Dolores, Abra, the complainant Janet Avero—then aged 12 years, 8 months, and 3 days—was returning home from the river after washing clothes.
Janet testified that the accused, Dominador Avero, suddenly appeared on her pathway, seized her by placing his hands around her waist, and silenced her when she shouted by covering her mouth.
She was then forcibly taken to a field where camotes were planted. In the field, the accused:

Lowered her short pants and panty.
Removed his own long pants and lowered his briefs before raping her.
Moved his waist back and forth during the act, with Janet noting a sensation of warmth even though complete penetration was not achieved.
Brandished a bolo to threaten her, warning her not to report the incident and threatening to kill both her and her father if she did.

Janet delayed reporting the crime due to such threats, eventually informing her father eight days later and subsequently providing a statement to the police and undergoing a medical examination.

Clarito Avero, Janet’s father, recounted that on February 19, 1984, when he went to send his daughter to fetch water, he noticed her distress and discovered she was crying.
Upon further questioning, Janet disclosed the incident, describing how Dominador Avero had:

Grabbed her waist and forcibly taken her to a forested area near camote plantations.
Kissed her several times, removed her panty, and raped her.
Threatened her by stating that her father would be killed if the incident was reported.

Clarito Avero confirmed that they later went to the police camp in Bangued, Abra on February 21, 1984, where they filed a report and Janet underwent a physical/medical examination at the Abra Provincial Hospital.

Dra. Adela Vera Cruz, a resident physician at the Abra Provincial Hospital, examined Janet on February 21, 1984, and noted the following:

External genitalia displayed characteristics consistent with her age (conical breasts, small pinkish areola and nipple, coapted labia).
The hymen was found to have shallow, old lacerations at the 12 o’clock, 3 o’clock, and 9 o’clock positions, which were consistent with the reported sexual abuse.

Dominador Avero, 64 years old and the uncle of the complainant, claimed he was not present at the scene during the crime.
He testified that on February 10, 1984, he had been fetched by Emiliano de Guzman, Jr. to visit a sick relative in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, leaving for the trip on the morning of February 11, 1984, thereby establishing an alibi.
The alibi was challenged by the court on the basis that it was uncorroborated and did not withstand the positive identification and evidence presented by the complainant and her father.

The trial court found the testimony of Janet Avero to be credible, basing its assessment on her consistent recounting of the events and the supporting physical and witness testimonies.
It was noted that her young age and natural instinct to protect her honor would have deterred her from fabricating such serious allegations against her own uncle.
The court referenced precedents (e.g., People v. Egot, People v. Alcid, People v. Ibal) emphasizing that in rape cases, particularly those involving minors, the credibility of the victim’s testimony is paramount.
The accused’s subsequent flight from the province (with arrest and detention occurring only after he was located following a prolonged absence) was taken as an indication of consciousness of guilt.

Whether the complainant’s testimony, given her age and the delay in reporting, was sufficiently credible to convict the accused.
The weight to be given to the supporting testimonies of Janet’s father and the medical findings that corroborated the sexual abuse.

Whether the accused’s claim of being in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur at the time of the crime could establish a valid alibi in the absence of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses.
Whether the accused’s flight from the province should be seen as an indication of guilt, thus undermining his alibi.

Whether the trial court’s assessment of the complainant’s credibility was proper and supported by the facts.
The extent to which appellate courts should refrain from disturbing factual determinations made by the trial court.