G.R. No. 103967 . April 7, 1993.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GENEROSO SUJETADO y ESMELLARIN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Generoso Sujetado was charged with the crime of rape allegedly committed on March 21, 1988, in Bacolod City, against complainant Livy Montelibano, a minor below twelve years of age. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and accessory penalties. The prosecution’s version, as testified by Livy, was that at around 8:30 a.m., accused-appellant invited her to his house to pull out his gray hair, and upon her refusal, he pulled her inside, made her lie on a bed, and had sexual intercourse with her. After the act, he gave her a five-peso bill. Prosecution witness Jeffrey Samartin, Livy’s cousin, testified that around 10:00 a.m., he saw accused-appellant come down from his house followed by Livy, who was pulling up her pants, and Livy told him she was abused. Livy was medically examined on the same day, and the findings showed old healed hymenal lacerations and a whitish discharge. The defense, however, presented an alibi. Accused-appellant, a 58-year-old overseer, testified that from 6:00 a.m. on March 21, 1988, he was watering and pruning guava trees, and later, from around 8:30 a.m. to past 11:30 a.m., he was at his house with his wife, children, and grandchildren, attending to a customer, Clemens Mabugat, who came to buy fighting cocks. He claimed the accusation was a frame-up by Livy’s mother, Marilyn Montelibano, so that her brother, Roberto Naranja, could take over his position as overseer, as the hacienda owner’s policy was to dismiss any employee against whom a case is filed. It was also revealed that Livy had previous sexual relations with a married man, Emilio Tribo, which her mother did not seem disturbed by.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Generoso Sujetado for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted accused-appellant. The prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution’s evidence was not clear and convincing. The defense’s alibi, supported by witnesses, showed that accused-appellant was with family and a customer during the alleged time of the rape, making its commission improbable. The testimony of prosecution witness Jeffrey Samartin, that accused-appellant immediately came down with Livy after the alleged rape, was not in accord with human experience. The medical findings only revealed old healed hymenal lacerations, consistent with Livy’s admitted prior sexual activity, and no conclusive evidence of recent rape. The trial court’s conviction was based on conjecture and speculation. While rape is a detestable crime, the accusation is easy to make but hard to defend against, and the complainant’s testimony must be impeccable. In this case, the prosecution’s story smacked of concoction and failed to produce moral certainty of guilt. Therefore, accused-appellant was declared not guilty and ordered immediately released unless detained on other legal grounds.