G.R. No. 121378 May 21, 1998
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ronald Sumampong y Parajes, Donald Te y Ranerio, Aurelio Rivas y Verano and Jovy Orello y Toralba, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Ronald Sumampong, Donald Te, Jovy Orello, and Aurelio Rivas (at large) were charged with rape before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. The information alleged that on or about February 25, 1992, in Davao City, the accused, conspiring and helping one another, rendered complainant Annaliza Abella weak and semiconscious by making her drink liquor and then had carnal knowledge of her against her will. Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court convicted appellants. The prosecution’s version established that on February 25, 1992, Donald Te befriended Abella, invited her to his house, and later to the house of Aurelio Rivas. There, they had lunch, and later Sumampong and Orello arrived. A drinking spree ensued, and Abella was urged to drink two shots of Tanduay rhum, causing her to feel dizzy. Appellants brought her upstairs where Sumampong pulled down her pants and underwear. She resisted, but Sumampong succeeded with Orello grasping her hands and Te and Rivas forcing her legs apart. She later passed out. When Abella failed to return home, a search led to Rivas’ house where she was found asleep. The next day, after regaining consciousness, she reported the incident. A medico-legal examination confirmed the presence of spermatozoa in her vagina. Appellants proffered alibi as their defense, claiming they were elsewhere during the incident.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellants of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants. The Court found appellants’ defense of alibi inherently weak and not credible, as they failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. The positive identification by the victim, who narrated the incident in a natural and straightforward manner, prevailed. The carnal act was adequately established by the victim’s testimony and the medico-legal findings confirming recent sexual intercourse. The Court also addressed the contention about the location of the crime, noting that the trial court’s findings and a barangay official’s testimony confirmed the existence of a usable second storey in Rivas’ house. The Court further ruled that conspiracy was present, as the acts of appellants before, during, and after the commission of the crime showed a joint purpose and design. The act of one was thus deemed the act of all. The decision of the trial court was affirmed, subject to the deletion of the award of moral damages for want of legal and factual basis.