Title
People vs. Cabel y Iwag
Case
G.R. No. 121508
Decision Date
Dec 4, 1997
A 15-year-old girl was raped by Joel Cabel in 1989. Despite his claims of alibi and consensual relationship, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, citing credible testimony and medical evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 121508)

Background and Lawsuit Initiation

On July 27, 1993, Alma C. Dumacyon filed a sworn complaint against appellant Joel Cabel y Iwag, alleging that he had carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation, which initiated Criminal Case No. 454-T. Alma, then a fifteen-year-old student, was on her way to attend classes when she was accosted by Cabel. Arraigned on August 18, 1994, Cabel entered a plea of not guilty. The trial court conducted a merits trial, leading to a conviction on November 13, 1995, sentencing Cabel to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages.

Testimonies and Evidence

During the trial, testimonies were presented by the complainant, her father, Fortunato Dumacyon, and Dr. George Calugay, who examined the victim and noted several healed hymenal lacerations. The prosecution established that Alma was attacked by Cabel, who emerged from a thicket and, upon threatening her with a knife, forced her into a secluded area where he raped her.

Upon returning home, Alma disclosed the incident to her father only after a delay of three days. They reported the crime to the police on October 2, 1989. Alma underwent a medical examination, which corroborated her account and suggested sexual assault due to the physical evidence of her injuries.

Accused's Defense

Cabel denied the allegations, asserting that any sexual contact was consensual, claiming that he and Alma were lovers. He contended he was at a different location during the attack and cited an alibi supported by two companions who, however, were not presented in court. The trial judge dismissed these claims as self-serving and uncorroborated, further emphasizing that producing evidence to support claims of an established romantic relationship was vital, which Cabel failed to provide.

Legal Analysis and Trial Court's Rationale

The trial court found substantial credibility in the complainant's account and physical evidence. It ruled that the age of the victim and the nature of the crime negated any possibility of consent. The court emphasized that Alma's minor age precluded the validity of Cabel’s assertions of a consensual relationship. Furthermore, an abuser's flight from legal consequences was noted as indicative of guilt.

Despite accusations of inconsistencies in Alma’s testimony, the court maintained that such discrepancies are expected considering the traumatic experience and the passage of time. The trial court holds that the complainant’s credibility is paramount, especially in sexual assault cases where the societal stigma and the emotional toll often d

...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.