GR 134773; (June, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134773 ; June 29, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. AVELINO MABONGA y BABON, appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Avelino Mabonga, was charged with the rape of Janice Malacaman, a 13-year-old girl with a mental condition. The prosecution established that on April 20, 1997, in Rodriguez, Rizal, the appellant, who was drunk, dragged Janice to an abandoned toilet and sexually assaulted her. Janice, who suffered from epilepsy and had the mental capacity of a 6 or 7-year-old, was unable to give valid consent. The incident was witnessed by Rolando Ayad, who saw the appellant on top of the struggling victim and immediately sought help.
Medical examination confirmed recent loss of virginity, with lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse. The defense presented an alibi, claiming the appellant was drunk and asleep on a pavement, and alleged that the witnesses were motivated by a land dispute to fabricate the charge. The trial court convicted the appellant of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the victim and the eyewitness, Rolando Ayad, to be credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. The defense of alibi was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the credibility of the victim is paramount, especially when she is a minor. The victim’s mental incapacity, as clinically diagnosed, rendered her incapable of giving consent, which is a key element of statutory rape.
The legal logic rests on the principle that alibi is unavailing when the accused is positively identified, and the testimony of a mentally incapacitated victim, when credible, is given full weight. The medico-legal report provided physical corroboration. The alleged motive of the witnesses was deemed insufficient to discredit their clear and convincing accounts of the crime. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was proper, and the award of moral damages was sustained. The conviction was thus upheld, as all elements of rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt.