G.R. No. 142606; November 29, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NESTOR MUNTA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on October 9, 1995, at around 5:30 p.m., 15-year-old Luzviminda Borromeo was walking home from school in Ramon, Isabela. She noticed accused-appellant Nestor Munta, whom she knew, drinking with others at a store. Sensing he was following her, she ran, but he chased, caught, and assaulted her. Munta then dragged her to a grassy area, removed her clothing, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. Luzviminda immediately reported the rape to her mother, leading to Munta’s arrest that same night. A medical examination the next day revealed fresh lacerations on her hymen and multiple abrasions consistent with a struggle.
Accused-appellant denied the charge, presenting an alibi that he was drinking with friends from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. and was taken home drunk. He admitted knowing and admiring the complainant but claimed he did not see her that day. His witnesses corroborated his alibi, but their testimonies were weakened during cross-examination, with one witness answering in English despite claiming not to understand it. The trial court found him guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with civil indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Nestor Munta for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Luzviminda, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent despite her youth and the trauma of the event. Her immediate reporting of the crime to her mother and the corroborative medical findings, which indicated fresh hymenal lacerations and physical injuries, strongly supported her account. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the complainant’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected by the trial court. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Munta failed to establish this impossibility, as the drinking session was in the same vicinity. Furthermore, the testimonies of his witnesses were deemed unreliable and failed to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s evidence. The positive identification by the victim, who knew the appellant, prevailed over the weak denial and alibi. The trial court’s award of civil indemnity was affirmed, and moral damages were additionally awarded, as is mandatory in rape convictions.