G.R. No. 104492 -93 May 31, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Orlando Frago, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Orlando Frago was charged with rape (Crim. Case No. 9144) and attempted rape (Crim. Case No. 9145). The trial court convicted him of rape and acquitted him of attempted rape. Only the rape conviction is under review. The prosecution’s version, as per complainant Jicelyn Lansap, a 15-year-old student, was that in the early morning of September 26, 1990, she was awakened by appellant strangling her in a vacant house. She shouted, he ran, and she discovered she was no longer wearing her skirt and underwear. She felt pain in her private part. A medical examination revealed fresh hymenal laceration, swollen vulva, contusions, abrasions, and the presence of spermatozoa. Jicelyn identified appellant in a police line-up on October 8, 1990. Appellant denied the charges, interposing alibi that he was asleep with his family at the time. He argued that his identification in the police line-up was without counsel, violating his constitutional rights, and that Jicelyn’s story was incredible.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) Whether the identification of the accused in a police line-up without the assistance of counsel violates his constitutional rights, warranting acquittal; and (2) Whether the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of the complainant, was credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Orlando Frago. The Court held:
1. The police line-up identification without counsel did not violate appellant’s constitutional rights. Citing Gamboa v. Cruz, the Court ruled that a police line-up, when not part of a custodial inquest where the accused is interrogated or gives a statement, does not trigger the right to counsel. The accusatory process had not yet begun at that stage.
2. The prosecution’s evidence failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found material discrepancies in Jicelyn’s testimony regarding how she was taken from her boarding house and the location of the alleged rape. It was deemed highly incredible that she could be bodily carried 300 meters away without awakening her or her two cousins sleeping beside her. The Solicitor General’s speculation that appellant used a drugged handkerchief was unsupported by evidence. The weakness of the defense of denial and alibi does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt based on its own evidence. The evidence did not survive the test of reason and failed to satisfy the conscience of the Court.