GR 190293; (March, 2012) (Digest)
March 17, 2026GR 92427; (August, 1991) (Digest)
March 17, 2026G.R. No. 136337; October 23, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NELSON CABUNTOG, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that in the early morning of May 6, 1995, in Surigao City, accused-appellant Nelson Cabuntog and a companion were at a store where the deaf-mute victim, Edna Durero, worked as a helper. The store owner, Vevencia Pareja, testified that she saw Cabuntog brush against Durero before both Durero and the two men went missing. Upon being found, Durero, through sign language interpreted by her sister, conveyed that Cabuntog dragged her to a nearby office, pushed her against a wall, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. A medical examination revealed the presence of spermatozoa in her vaginal smear. The defense presented an alibi, with Cabuntog claiming he was at home preparing fishing nets at the time of the incident, a claim corroborated by his barangay captain.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of rape based on the testimony of a deaf-mute witness and in finding that the crime was committed by means of force and intimidation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that a deaf-mute person is not ipso facto an incompetent witness. The trial court properly ascertained the intelligence of the victim and allowed her to testify through sign language interpretation, a mode within its sound discretion. Her testimony, corroborated by the store owner’s account and the medical finding of spermatozoa, was credible and sufficient to establish the elements of rape. The defense of alibi was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The Court ruled that force and intimidation were present, noting that intimidation is subjective and assessed from the victim’s perspective at the time of the crime. The absence of physical injuries does not negate rape, as the victim’s failure to resist can be due to fear. The penalty was properly modified to reclusion perpetua, and the indemnity was increased to P50,000.00, with an additional P50,000.00 awarded as moral damages.