G.R. No. 122740 March 30, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WINSTON DE GUZMAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Winston de Guzman was charged with the crime of rape before the Regional Trial Court of Mati, Davao Oriental. The information alleged that on or about June 9, 1994, in Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental, he had carnal knowledge of Jovelyn A. Geram, a 14-year-old, against her will through force, violence, and intimidation. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence established that on the afternoon of June 9, 1994, Jovelyn was alone in her house when she was awakened by appellant, who was naked and sitting on her thighs. He covered her mouth and nose, warned her not to resist or be killed, and a struggle ensued. Jovelyn felt weak and fainted. Upon recovering, she found herself undressed, with blood on her vagina and white fluid on her abdomen and thighs, and felt pain. She immediately reported the incident to neighbors and later to her mother. A medical examination confirmed a ruptured hymen, blood clots, and redness. Prosecution witnesses Genesis Delgado and Enecita dela Cruz Torion placed appellant at or near the victim’s house around the time of the incident. The defense presented denial and alibi, claiming appellant was in Davao City attending to a hospitalized sister-in-law from June 6 to June 10, 1994, corroborated only by his parents. The trial court convicted appellant, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify Jovelyn. Appellant appealed, challenging the credibility of the victim’s testimony.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the complainant and in convicting the accused-appellant based thereon, particularly in light of alleged inconsistencies between her trial testimony and her prior statements in the complaint and during the preliminary investigation regarding the use of “odorous chemicals.”

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with MODIFICATION, increasing the indemnity to P50,000.00. The Court held that the alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s prior statements could not be used to impeach her credibility because the defense failed to lay the proper predicate or foundation as required by Rule 132, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. Before a witness can be impeached by prior inconsistent statements, those statements must be related to the witness, with details of time, place, and persons present, and the witness must be asked whether she made such statements and allowed to explain. The defense merely offered the entire record of the preliminary investigation testimony without specifically confronting the complainant with the alleged contradictory statements about chemicals during the trial. Consequently, these prior statements were not properly presented as impeaching evidence and could not discredit her consistent trial testimony, which was corroborated by other witnesses and medical findings. The defense of denial and alibi, being weak and uncorroborated by disinterested witnesses, could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim.