G.R. No. 128137 ; August 2, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO HAMTO Y CODERAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint alleging that in the second week of May 1994, in Quezon City, accused Mario Hamto, together with Ronald Cuesta and Fernan Pervera, conspired to rape Mary Grace Labatete, a 24-year-old woman diagnosed with moderate mental retardation. The victim’s sister, Werlinia Labatete, discovered the assault after noticing Mary Grace’s fearful reaction upon seeing Pervera. Upon persistent questioning, Mary Grace revealed she was raped by the three men, who were all employees at Werlinia’s market stall. The victim was examined, with medico-legal findings confirming deep-healed lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse occurring more than seven days prior. A psychiatric evaluation established her mental age at seven years old.
At trial, Mary Grace testified that the rape occurred inside a jeepney, with Hamto being the first to assault her by boxing her chest, covering her mouth, and holding her hands. She identified all three assailants. The defense presented alibi, with Hamto claiming he was driving a jeep on a route to Baguio daily and could not have been present. The Regional Trial Court convicted Hamto of rape, sentencing him to twenty years and one day to forty years of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. Only Hamto appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Mario Hamto of rape based on the testimony of a mentally retarded victim and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the testimony of a mentally retarded victim is admissible and can be credible, provided it is given in a straightforward and consistent manner. The Court found Mary Grace’s testimony clear and categorical, detailing the specific acts of force and intimidation employed by Hamto. Her mental condition did not impair her capacity to perceive and relate the truth of the traumatic event. Her account was corroborated by the medico-legal certificate and her prompt disclosure to her sister.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim. Hamto failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. His claim of daily trips to Baguio did not preclude his presence in Quezon City during the time of the rape. The Court emphasized that denial, being a negative defense, carries less weight than positive testimony. No ill motive was shown for the victim or her sister to falsely accuse Hamto. Consequently, his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua, a single indivisible penalty, and civil indemnity and moral damages of P50,000 each were awarded.