GR 129365; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129365; December 4, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO MALACURA y MALIGRO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution alleged that on February 11, 1996, accused-appellant Alberto Malacura invited the 18-year-old complainant, Mary Rose Alonzo, to drink gin at his house in Malabon. After consuming several rounds, Alonzo felt dizzy, lost consciousness, and later awoke to find herself being sexually molested by Malacura. She fully regained consciousness the next morning on a sofa, with her clothing in disarray. She did not immediately report the incident due to alleged threats from the appellant. A subsequent medical examination revealed a distensible but intact hymen, and later, Alonzo was treated for an incomplete abortion. The defense presented a contradictory version, asserting that the drinking session ended early in the afternoon with Alonzo and others leaving the house, and that Malacura spent the evening with his family. Malacura denied the rape accusation.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused. The Court found the testimony of the private complainant lacking in credibility and consistency, which failed to establish the appellant’s guilt with the required moral certainty. Key inconsistencies noted included: varying accounts of the time she arrived at the appellant’s house and the presence of the appellant’s wife during the drinking session; contradictory statements regarding whether the appellant threatened her upon waking and his whereabouts at that time; and the inherent improbability, given the defense testimony, that she remained unconscious overnight in the small house without the appellant’s family noticing. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the conviction must rest on the credible and unequivocal testimony of the victim that clearly identifies the accused as the perpetrator. Here, the prosecution’s evidence was riddled with doubts and inconsistencies. Since the identity of the culprit was not established beyond reasonable doubt, the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail. The Court directed the appellant’s immediate release unless detained for another lawful cause.