G.R. No. 101809 ; February 20, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGER LARAY, REWEL RABANES, NOLI ENERIO, FEDERICO LARAY, and GOROSPE (JUARIO) OMILAO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that on the evening of July 27, 1989, Hilda Jamis was at a benefit dance in Tangcob, Misamis Oriental. Appellant Roger Laray forcibly pulled her to a secluded area where appellants Rewel Rabanes, Noli Enerio, Federico Laray, and Gorospe Omilao later joined him. They held Hilda, removed her clothing, and Roger Laray struck her stomach, causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, Hilda found Roger Laray on top of her, raping her while the others held her down. The four other appellants then successively raped her. Roger Laray’s defense was that he and Hilda were sweethearts and that their sexual intercourse that night was consensual, claiming they were interrupted by unidentified persons. The other appellants uniformly denied the accusation and presented alibis, claiming they were elsewhere—either drinking at a waiting shed or working at their employer’s house—during the incident.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) Whether Roger Laray’s claim of a sweetheart relationship and consensual intercourse negates the charge of rape; and (2) Whether the testimonies of the other four appellants, supported by alibis, are sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on their participation in the crime.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Roger Laray but acquitted Rewel Rabanes, Federico Laray, and Gorospe Omilao. For Roger Laray, the Court found his sweetheart defense untenable. The claim of a prior consensual relationship does not justify or disprove a subsequent rape. Hilda’s credible and consistent testimony, corroborated by medical findings of recent sexual intercourse and hymenal laceration, established the use of force and lack of consent. Her immediate reporting of the crime to her mother and the authorities bolstered her credibility. For the other appellants, the Court applied the principle that alibi is inherently weak but can prevail against positive identification if the latter is not credible. The Court found Hilda’s identification of these three appellants as her rapists insufficient to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimonies regarding their specific participation were inconsistent and lacked the requisite clarity and certainty. Consequently, while the evidence firmly established Roger Laray’s guilt, it failed to do so for Rabanes, Laray, and Omilao, warranting their acquittal. The penalty and indemnity for Roger Laray were modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.