Title
People vs. Cabebe
Case
G.R. No. 125910
Decision Date
May 21, 1998
Efren Cabebe raped his 13-year-old stepdaughter, Ednalyn Daboc, in 1993. Despite delayed reporting and intact hymen, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, citing credible testimony and slight penetration as sufficient evidence.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125910)

Applicable Law

The decision is based on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically Article 335 concerning the crime of rape.

Summary of Facts

The prosecution's account contends that in May 1993, while Ednalyn was temporarily living with her mother and the appellant, an assault occurred. Ednalyn was in the house with Efren Cabebe, who, under the pretext of asking her to remove lice from his head, undressed her and proceeded to rape her. The appellant threatened Ednalyn with death if she disclosed the incident, leading her to remain silent until later revealing it to her aunt and grandmother. A medical examination subsequently indicated abrasions, although the hymen was intact.

Defense's Position

Efren Cabebe denied the accusations, asserting an alibi that he was at work during the incident. He claimed that he was approximately two and a half kilometers away from his home, making it physically impossible for him to commit the alleged act. Additionally, Cabebe asserted that there was no motive for Ednalyn or her grandmother to accuse him.

Trial Court's Findings

The RTC found Ednalyn's testimony to be credible and coherent, affirming that she provided a clear account of the sexual abuse. The court discredited Cabebe's defense of alibi and highlighted a handwritten letter from him to Victoria, Ednalyn's grandmother, seeking forgiveness as evidence of his consciousness of guilt.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Cabebe raised several issues on appeal, claiming that the lower court erred in holding him guilty and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. He questioned the credibility of Ednalyn's testimony and argued that any delay in her report of the crime undermined her credibility. Moreover, he contended that he was denied the right to cross-examine a potential witness who could support his alibi.

Court's Rulings on Appeal

The appellate court maintained that the trial court did not err in its judgment. It reiterated that the credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court to assess, and affirmed that Ednalyn's testimony provided sufficient grounds to conclude that sh

...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.