G.R. No. 134774 - People vs. LOPEZ

The case involves appellant Manuel Lopez alias aAwe, who was accused and eventually convicted of rape.
The rape was committed on October 16, 1993, at around 10:00 P.M. in Brgy. San Vicente, Santa Elena, Camarines Norte.
The offense was charged under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes rape, especially when committed with a deadly weapon.

The victim, Jessica B. Liz, a minor aged 9 years old, testified that she was confined for treatment at Tata Lope’s house.
She narrated that while asleep, she was suddenly awakened by the removal of her panty and recognized Manuel Lopez as the assailant.
According to her testimony, after the removal of her panty, the appellant removed his pants and brief, mounted her, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina for about 10 minutes.
She testified that during and after the assault, the appellant threatened to kill her with a bolo, ensuring her silence about the incident.

Dr. Henry Moreno, the Municipal Health Officer of Sta. Elena, conducted a medical examination on October 22, 1993, and issued a certificate detailing:

Erythematous labia majora and labia minora with a vaginal discharge.
Hymenal tear at the 3 and 9 o’clock positions along with less resistance and tenderness upon examination.
A positive sperm smear test—indicating penetration and ejaculation despite the sperm being dead.

Documentary evidence and additional testimonies (from SPO3 Benjamin Torres and Josefina Liz, the victim’s mother) corroborated the victim’s account of the events.

Manuel Lopez was arraigned on August 31, 1994, where he pleaded not guilty; subsequently, trial proceedings ensued with the presentation of conflicting testimonies.
The prosecution presented key witnesses such as Dr. Henry Moreno, Josefina Liz, Jessica Liz, and SPO3 Benjamin Torres.
The defense called Lope Lopez (the quack doctor and appellant’s brother) and appellant Manuel Lopez himself, whose testimonies were marked by inconsistencies—particularly regarding his location (initially asserting he was sleeping in the sala, then stating he was on the balcon).
The trial court of Daet, Camarines Norte, Branch 38, rendered a decision on April 14, 1998, convicting Manuel Lopez of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay P50,000 as indemnity to the victim.

The central dispute centered on the credibility of the victim’s testimony, particularly given the alleged conditions (e.g., darkness and communal character of the house) which the appellant argued made positive identification doubtful.
Appellant contended that the shared and undivided nature of Tata Lope’s house, where several persons were present, rendered it improbable for the victim to accurately recognize him.
The defense also raised an alibi, attempting to establish that the appellant was elsewhere during the commission of the offense; however, this defense was shown to be unconvincing since evidence did not prove that it was physically impossible for him to be in the room with the victim.
The consistent medical findings and the detailed, spontaneous account of Jessica Liz served as crucial indicators of the incident’s veracity, outweighing the inconsistencies in the appellant’s testimony.

Whether the victim’s identification of the appellant, despite the alleged physical and situational constraints (such as a dark room and the presence of other occupants), is reliable and credible.
Whether her consistent and detailed recounting, coupled with her voluntary submission to a medical examination, can be accepted as persuasive evidence.

Whether the appellant’s conflicting statements regarding his location in the house (first claiming the sala and later the balcon) undermine his credibility and support the prosecution’s case.
Whether such inconsistencies indirectly admit guilt or demonstrate a lack of substantive evidence to support an alibi.

Whether the defense of alibi—asserting the appellant was elsewhere—was sufficiently established by proving his physical impossibility to be present at the scene of the crime.
Whether the evidence showed that the appellant’s presence in the house invalidates his alibi claim.

Whether the award of damages (P50,000 as indemnity, along with moral and exemplary damages) is proper in view of jurisprudence and the need to protect minors and serve public policy.