Case Digest (G.R. No. 132295)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Andres Lubong y Paje, G.R. No. 132295, May 31, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Accused-appellant Andres Lubong y Paje was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Olongapo City, Branch 72, with two offenses in separate informations: Crim. Case No. 349-95 for Rape under Article 335, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, and Crim. Case No. 350-95 for Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. He pleaded not guilty and the two cases were tried jointly.
At trial the prosecution presented the alleged victim Jennifer Mangcol, her guardian Elizabeth “Auntie Beth” Ortiz, Dr. Laila Patricio (who examined Jennifer and found the hymen with multiple healed lacerations), and Dr. Aida Muncada (a psychiatrist who evaluated Jennifer and diagnosed sexual abuse and mental retardation with an IQ of 35, describing her mental age as about six years). Jennifer testified in court and positively identified appellant as her assailant; because of her mental retardation the court permitted leading questions. The defense put up only appellant, who denied the charges and asserted an alibi that he was working as a mason on the date of the alleged offense; he offered no corroborating witnesses.
The trial court found appellant guilty of rape (Crim. Case No. 349-95) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered moral damages of P100,000, but acquitted him in Crim. Case No. 350-95 for Sexual Abuse. Appellant appealed the conviction; the record in the rollo contains his assignments of error contesting the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, the identification, the alle...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the identification of appellant as the assailant proper and reliable despite the absence of a police line-up?
- Was the testimony of the mentally retarded complainant and the other evidence sufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did appellant’s uncorroborated alibi and the alleged physical impossibility of his escape create reasonable doubt that would require acquittal?
- Could the conviction rest on Article 335, paragraph 1 (use of force or intimidation) although the Information charged Arti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)