G.R. No. 152574 - Abella, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission

The victim, referred to as BBB, was a close friend of the appellant’s wife, and both were partners in a “mango business.”
The intimate relationship between the families and the business connection establish the background against which the incident occurred.

On April 29, 1998, BBB and the appellant’s wife returned from Tuguegarao, Cagayan; BBB arrived home at around 8:00 p.m. and went to bed by 11:00 p.m. with her eight-year-old daughter.
The tranquility of the night was shattered by the incessant barking of a dog, which nevertheless did not alert BBB to the identity of the intruder.
The appellant, Warlito C. Fernandez, armed with a short firearm, suddenly entered the room illuminated by a kerosene lamp.
Both BBB and her daughter instantly recognized the appellant.
Without a moment’s hesitation, the appellant overpowered BBB by:

Laying on top of her.
Holding her with his left hand while pointing a gun at her right temple with his right hand.

Despite her fear, BBB did not physically resist, as she was terrified that any attempt at resistance would endanger her life and that of her daughter.
BBB’s daughter, who was in the same bed, witnessed part of the incident and saw the appellant’s movements.
Before leaving the scene, the appellant also threatened the child with his firearm, prompting her to cover herself with a blanket.

Upon the husband’s arrival, BBB tearfully related the entire sequence of events.
Despite her initial distress, BBB’s husband consoled her and promised to find the perpetrator the following day.
On April 30, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., BBB reported the incident to a barangay councilman who then sought assistance from the barangay captain.
Subsequently, on May 2, 1998, both BBB and her daughter provided their sworn statements to the police headquarters.
A medical examination was conducted on May 5, 1998, by Municipal Health Officer Dr. Eugenio Dayag who issued a certificate noting the absence of bruises or abrasions.
BBB filed a criminal complaint on May 7, 1998, initiating the judicial process, which led to the issuance of a warrant for the appellant’s arrest.
The appellant was arrested on June 8, 1998, and a preliminary investigation supported by the findings of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court in September 1998 paved the way for filing an Information on October 5, 1998, before the RTC.

The appellant’s defense was based on both a denial of the allegations and an alibi:

He testified that he was present at a political rally in Lattac, Sto. NiAo, Cagayan from 7:00 p.m. until midnight on April 29, 1998.
He claimed that after the rally, he was seen accompanied by BBB’s husband and the husband’s brother-in-law.
An additional defense witness was introduced to corroborate the alibi, although her testimony later contained inconsistencies and retractions.

On January 7, 2003, the RTC rendered a decision finding the appellant guilty of rape, initially prescribing the death penalty by lethal injection along with orders to pay indemnity and moral damages.
Subsequent transmission and automatic appeal led to the case being elevated:

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications, particularly in the award of damages.
The case subsequently underwent automatic review before the Supreme Court.

Whether or not the evidence—including the testimony of the victim and her daughter—was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the peripheral inconsistencies in witness testimonies affected the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case.

The extent to which the differing accounts regarding physical resistance, the presence and role of the firearm, and the timing of events might cast doubt on the victim’s narrative.
Whether the retraction by the defense witness regarding the victim's state (initial fear versus later claims of not being afraid) undermined the prosecution’s case.

Whether the appellant’s alibi—asserting his presence at a political rally and later with companions including BBB’s husband—was credible and sufficiently corroborated.
Whether the testimony of the accompanying individuals supported the alibi, making it impossible for the appellant to have committed the crime.

The issue of whether the crime, being committed under circumstances warranting the death penalty (use of a firearm and occurrence in the victim’s dwelling), should attract capital punishment.
Considering Republic Act No. 9346, whether the penalty should instead be modified to reclusion perpetua.