Title
People vs. Albarillo
Case
G.R. No. 84729
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1990
A 15-year-old girl was allegedly raped in a banana plantation; medical evidence and credible testimony led to the appellant’s conviction, despite his alibi and claims of a family feud.
rape
carnal knowledge
force
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 84729)

Factual Background

The complainant, Melinda Cuaresma, testified that before seven o’clock in the morning of January 14, 1986, her stepfather, Norberto Saramusing, asked her to gather fern tops across the Ibuye River in a fern grove located within a banana plantation. While she was gathering fern tops, she met the appellant, who asked whether she had seen his female carabao. After she replied in the negative, she saw him leave for the farm of her Ka Francing.

As she continued gathering fern tops, she noticed the appellant following her. He asked what she intended to do with the fern tops. When she answered that she would cook them, the appellant embraced her and forced her to lie down on the ground. She shouted for help, but the appellant warned her to shut up or he would kill her. According to her account, while her right hand was being held by the appellant, she held on to her panty with her left hand; however, because he was stronger, the appellant was able to remove it. He then pulled down his short pants while kneeling and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the complainant.

After managing to free herself, the complainant ran and crossed the river toward her home. Her mother, Lucita Saramusing, heard her cry “Inay, inay,” and later saw her daughter fall on the bank of the river, about fifty (50) meters from their house. When the complainant stood up, she reported to her mother that she was raped by the appellant.

Lucita brought Melinda to Barangay Councilman Leonilo Populi, who referred them to Barangay Captain Pepito Puras, and from there they were directed to the Police Station. At the station, their statements were taken, and Melinda was told to undergo a medical examination.

Medical Examination and Physical Findings

The medical certificate, issued by Dr. Arturo Alberto, reflected that he examined the complainant on January 15, 1986. The external findings listed contusions and hematomas, including a contusion on the right breast and several hematomas on the right arm and leg. As to the genitalia, the certificate found a fresh laceration at 7 and 5 o’clock in the hymen and that the vaginal canal admitted two examining fingers with least resistance. Laboratory examination showed no spermatozoa found on vaginal smear.

Appellant’s Defense

The appellant denied participation and claimed alibi. He stated that at the time of the alleged incident he was working as a laborer constructing the Bisay-an Bridge at Barangay Villaflor, San Teodoro. He asserted that he first learned of the charge on January 16, 1986, when his cousin Edgardo Albarillo fetched him from his work. The appellant went back to sitio Ibuye at about 9:00 a.m. the same day to verify with his mother, who denied knowledge of the charge. He further claimed that he was fetched by a policeman at about 2:00 p.m. and brought to the municipal building, where he was detained without having any statement taken from him.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, Branch XXXIX, rendered a decision on June 10, 1988 finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P20,000.00 as actual, compensatory and moral damages, and required him to pay costs. The appellant’s conviction rested on the trial court’s assessment of the complainant’s testimony as corroborated by the medical findings.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellant assigned two errors. First, he argued that the trial court erred in holding that rape was committed against the complainant. Second, he contended that the trial court erred in not giving credence to his defense.

The Supreme Court ultimately framed the only determinative question as whether the appellant was guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

The Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

The Court considered that rape cases often depend on the credibility of the complainant and the accused because the act is frequently witnessed by only two people. It noted the appellant’s position that the prosecution failed to establish the offense, and that his defense should have created reasonable doubt.

Credibility of the Complainant and Corroboration by the Medical Evidence

The Supreme Court sustained the trial court’s view that the complainant’s testimony deserved credence. It emphasized that the complainant was an unsophisticated barrio girl and barely 15 years old at the time of the incident. The Court found that she had no reason to fabricate a story of violation. It observed that her narration before, during, and after the rape remained consistent and unwavering even during cross-examination.

The Court also held that her account of struggling to free herself cohered with the injuries reflected in the medical certificate. It further ruled that the complainant’s behavior immediately after the incident supported the prosecution. According to the Court, she reported the rape without delay to the authorities, and the police who interviewed her observed that she was pale and trembling, her clothes were wet, and she was crying and unable to speak, leading to advice that she rest and calm down.

Appellant’s Attack Through Expert Testimony

The appellant sought to cast doubt through the testimony of Dr. Mariefreda Madla, who opined that contusions and hematomas may be attributable to pre-menstrual irregularities and that the hymen may be broken by biking, running, or masturbation, or during examination. The Supreme Court afforded the expert testimony scant consideration because Dr. Madla had not personally examined the complainant and had based her views only on the medical certificate. The Court held that such testimony amounted to a theoretical assessment that could not overcome the findings and testimony of Dr. Alberto, who actually examined the complainant.

The Court added that Dr. Madla’s testimony did not negate the probability of intercourse as the cause of the hymenal laceration and the injuries described in the certificate.

Barangay Captain Testimony and Alleged Inconsistencies

The appellant also relied on the testimony of Barangay Captain Pepito Puras, who said that Lucita approached him and complained that the appellant wanted to rape her daughter, and that Lucita and Melinda told him that “had it not been for the stepfather” the complainant would have been raped. The Supreme Court held that such testimony, taken in isolation, did not overturn the prosecution evidence, which it found strongly pointed to the appellant’s guilt.

The Court further explained that any inaccuracy on the part of Lucita could be understood given the circumstances—Lucita faced with the rape of her daughter and intending to seek redress. It underscored that the decisive point remained the complainant’s credible testimony that she was violated by the appellant against her will and without consent.

Denial by Alibi and its Rejection

The appellant insisted that he could not have raped the complainant because on January 14, 1986 he was working at the Bisay-an Bridge project in Barangay Villaflor. He presented daily time sheets from January 11 to January 15, 1986 and testimonies of the project engineer and co-workers that the time records were prepared before work started at about seven o’clock in the morning, and that workers were allowed to sign only before 7:10 or 7:15. The appellant’s thesis was that this proved he was already working at the time of the rape.

The Court reiterated that alibi is a weak defense. It required that for alibi to merit full faith and credit, it must be established beyond doubt and must show not only that the accused was not at the place where the crime was committed, but also that it was impossible for him to be there. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to meet these requirements.

It identified several reasons for rejecting the alibi. First, the foreman and project engineer admitted the nature of the work required them to leave the job site during working days, and that the signing of daily time records was entrusted to another person. This meant that even if a worker arrived after the allowed time, the late arrival could go unnoticed and the worker could still sign the time sheet.

Second, the Court noted that the daily time sheets were mere yellow pad sheets with spaces for workers to sign in the morning and in the afternoon; these did not indicate actual arrival times or departure times. Thus, the appellant could have signed despite being late.

Third, the Court found that the distance between the alleged crime site in sitio Ibuye, Barangay Calsapa, and the appellant’s alleged work site in Barangay Villaflor was only approximately seven (7) kilometers. The Court accepted the appellant’s own testimony that he had to cross the Ibuye River and then take a tricycle from Calsapa’s poblacion, with a further negotiation of about two kilometers to the bridge. It reasoned that the crime scene could be traversed en route from the appellant’s house in sitio Ibuye to his place of work. Consequently, it found consistency between the theory that after raping the complainant in sitio Ibuye, the appellant could have proceeded to work in Barangay Villaflor. The Court also cited jurisprudence holding that alibi cannot be believed where the distance between barrios is short and can be traversed within a limited time.

Finally, the Court disregarded the appellant’s attempts to impute motives to the complainant’s family to implicate him. It rejected the supposed long-standing feud and found implausible the theory that Lucita would use her daughter, thereby subjecting her to the shame of alleging defloration, simply to seek vengeance based on alleged family grievances. The Court stated that it was difficult to believe a young, unmarried woman would tell such a story and submit to publ

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms