G.R. No. 121508 - People vs. Cabel y Iwag

An information was filed on July 27, 1993, based on a sworn written complaint filed on July 26, 1993 by Alma C. Dumacyon, assisted by her father, Fortunato Dumacyon.
The complaint alleged that on or about August 27, 1989, in Quirino, Ilocos Sur, the accused-appellant, Joel Cabel y Iwag, raped the complainant by means of force and intimidation, despite her will and without her consent.
The accused, after being arraigned with the assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty.
Pre-trial proceedings were waived, and the case proceeded to trial on the merits in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur.
On November 13, 1995, the trial court rendered its decision convicting the accused of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the victim liquidated damages in varying amounts for the rape, her expenses in attending trial, and the ordeal she endured.

On August 27, 1989, around 3:00 in the afternoon—a Sunday—a fifteen-year-old Alma Dumacyon was on her way to her aunt’s house in Barangay Tumbaga, Quirino, to prepare for school.
While traversing through Nabukaan, Sitio Dagman, Alma was suddenly accosted by Joel Cabel who emerged from a thicket on the left side of the road.
Alma, frightened by his abrupt appearance, shouted for help; however, the accused immediately grabbed and pulled her towards the thicket, about twenty meters away from the main road.
The accused beat Alma mercilessly, striking her several times on the back, and then brandished a knife to intimidate her.
He grabbed her neck with his right hand, forced her down to the ground, and proceeded to remove her skirt and panty before taking off his own pants to forcibly have carnal knowledge of her.
During the ordeal, Alma experienced intense pain and lost consciousness; when she awoke, she saw the accused fleeing towards the road.

Following the incident, Alma moved to her aunt’s house in Barangay Tumbaga, where she remained for three days due to her school examination.
Upon returning home to Sitio Dagman, her father noticed her sickly appearance, prompting her to confess that she had been raped by the accused.
The crime was formally reported on October 2, 1989, when Alma, accompanied by her father, went to the Philippine National Police in Quirino, Ilocos Sur, to make a sworn statement.
On October 5, 1989, Dr. George P. Calugay conducted a medical examination at Besang Pass District Hospital and found that Alma’s hymen and labia minora bore several healed lacerations, indicative of the physical trauma sustained.

The accused-appellant denied raping the complainant, asserting that the sexual encounter was consensual and that they were lovers.
He maintained that on the day of the incident, between 2:00 and 5:00 in the afternoon, he was at a farm in Dagman, Ilocos Sur, cleaning rice paddies with his two companions, Jaime Mangget and Melchor Gumintong.
The accused also acknowledged having had sexual relations with Alma on previous occasions, but contended that these were voluntary, further arguing that subsequent acts were likewise consensual.
No reliable evidence or corroborative testimony was provided to substantiate his alibi or the claim of a consensual relationship with the victim.

The prosecution’s case was built on the testimonies of three key witnesses: complainant Alma Dumacyon, her father Fortunato Dumacyon, and Dr. George Calugay, the physician who examined Alma.
The complainant’s account, including details of the attack, the struggle, and the subsequent medical findings corroborating physical injuries, was deemed credible by the trial court.
Although the complainant’s testimony contained minor discrepancies—such as variations in the description of her clothing and the timing of her disclosures—these were considered understandable given the distance in time from the traumatic event and the victim’s young age.
The accused’s claim of a prior consensual relationship was rejected as self-serving, particularly because Alma, being only fifteen years old, could not have willingly participated in such a relationship.
The physical evidence, notably the healed hymenal and labial lacerations observed during the medical examination, further substantiated the victim's claim of rape.

The trial record included references to the accused’s prior criminal background, including a conviction for a drug-related offense and his escape from custody; however, these were not the basis on which the conviction for rape was secured.
The defense’s alibi was undermined by the proximity of the accused’s alleged location to the crime scene and by the lack of direct testimony from his companions.
The trial court placed significant reliance on its observation of the victim’s demeanor and her consistent yet emotionally affected testimony, reinforcing the narrative of a violent and non-consensual act.

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape by giving credence to the victim’s testimony.

Whether the inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts were substantial enough to undermine her overall credibility.
Whether the factual findings supported a conclusion that the evidence of rape was beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the defense’s contention that the sexual encounter was consensual—invoking the “sweetheart theory”—could negate the element of force and intimidation in the commission of the crime.

Whether the accused's claims of a prior romantic relationship were corroborated by any evidence presented at trial.
Whether the credibility of the complainant, as a minor with no prior intimate relationship with the accused, was sufficient to reject his defense.

Whether the defense alibi provided by the accused, stating that he was engaged in work at a rice field with two companions, was credible and sufficiently supported by evidence.

Whether the absence of corroborative testimony from the alleged companions invalidated the alibi.
Whether the proximity of the alleged alibi location to the crime scene further weakened the defense.