GR 110559; (November, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110559 November 24, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO SABAN and NORMELITA SABAN, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The case involves the rape of Normita Elomina, a 14-year-old epileptic. Her mother, Jovita, sought the healing services of accused-appellant Normelita Saban, a reputed faith healer. On July 9, 1982, Normelita persuaded Jovita to let Normita stay at her mother-in-law’s house in Balibago, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, for continuous treatment. On July 17, 1982, Normelita called Normita to her own house. Normita was told to lie down, ostensibly for treatment. Normelita then called her husband, Rolando Saban, instructing him to remove his pants. Normelita pinned down Normita’s hands and covered her mouth while Rolando forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. Normelita watched and laughed during the act. Afterward, Normelita warned Normita not to tell anyone.
The defense presented denial and alibi. Normelita denied the incident, claiming it was against human nature to commit rape in daylight in front of her children, and alleged the complaint was motivated by a desire to avoid paying for her healing services. Rolando also denied the rape and claimed he was elsewhere at the time. The trial court convicted both accused of rape.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellants Rolando and Normelita Saban for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Normita, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her account was corroborated by the medico-legal report of Dr. Solita Plastina, which confirmed recent lacerations and the presence of spermatozoa, proving sexual penetration. The defense of alibi proffered by Rolando was weak, as he failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The Court also found Normelita’s denial unpersuasive, ruling it was improbable for the complainant and her mother to endure a humiliating trial merely to avoid payment or discredit Normelita’s healing practice. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The appellants acted in conspiracy, with Normelita facilitating the crime by subduing the victim. The appealed decision was affirmed with modification regarding damages. Accused-appellants were ordered to pay indemnity and moral damages to the complainant.