G.R. No. 137665, January 16, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO PAINITAN alias “ABIE”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that on the night of December 12, 1995, accused-appellant Alberto Painitan entered the house of Victoria Tambule in Hinunangan, Southern Leyte. Victoria, whose husband was away, was asleep with her children in separate rooms. She was awakened by Painitan, who was slightly drunk, hugging and kissing her. He allegedly boxed her shoulders and thighs, causing her to lose consciousness. Victoria testified that despite being unconscious, she remembered Painitan undressing her, having sexual intercourse with her, and then leaving. She reported the incident to her husband five days later. Her daughter, Cecilia, testified she witnessed Painitan on top of her mother making pumping motions. A medical examination revealed hematoma on Victoria’s body, but no examination of her private parts was conducted due to the lapse of time.
The defense presented witnesses who claimed the Tambules executed an affidavit of desistance due to financial hardship and the husband’s ill health, allegedly after receiving P500. The accused-appellant did not take the witness stand. The trial court convicted Painitan of rape.

ISSUE

Was the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Alberto Painitan. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. In this case, the prosecution’s evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities that created reasonable doubt.
The Court found Victoria Tambule’s testimony regarding the incident while she was allegedly unconscious to be highly questionable and contrary to human experience. Her claim of remembering specific details of the sexual act despite being rendered unconscious by blows was deemed incredible. Furthermore, the delay in reporting the incident, coupled with the defense’s evidence regarding a possible affidavit of desistance, raised significant doubts about the narrative’s veracity. The Court also noted the possibility that the incident might have been consensual, given the unbolted door and the accused’s immediate flight, which could have been to avoid a wronged husband rather than prosecution. Since the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond moral certainty, the accused-appellant is entitled to an acquittal.