G.R. Nos. 144080-81; January 26, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ARSENIO DE JESUS (acquitted) and RUBEN “AGO” LUMIBAO, accused, RUBEN “AGO” LUMIBAO, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Ruben “Ago” Lumibao, the paternal uncle of Agnes Lumibao, was charged with rape. The Information alleged that between September 1996 and March 1997, he had carnal knowledge with Agnes, a 27-year-old mental retardate with a mental age of three. The case originated when Agnes’s pregnancy was discovered. During interviews with NBI psychologists and psychiatrists, Agnes, who had a very limited vocabulary and required her mother’s assistance to communicate, reportedly nodded or raised her hands when the names “Ruben” and “Arsenio” were mentioned. In an NBI line-up, she pointed to appellant. At trial, Agnes testified the father of her child was “Papa” and pointed to appellant, but on cross-examination, she also named several other neighbors as having sexually assaulted her.
The defense presented appellant’s denial and alleged a motive for the complaint. Appellant testified that the victim’s mother, Nenita, sought to acquire his parents’ property after their deaths. When he refused to sign a related document, Nenita told him, “You will have your day.” The RTC convicted appellant of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of appellant Ruben Lumibao for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted appellant based on reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. The testimony of the victim, Agnes, was deemed insufficient to establish guilt beyond moral certainty. As a mental retardate with the comprehension of a three-year-old, her credibility and competency as a witness were highly questionable. Her accusations were not spontaneous and were elicited only through leading questions and the enumeration of names by others, including her mother. Her testimony was further rendered unreliable by her claim on cross-examination that several other men had also raped her, which was not corroborated and not the subject of any charge. The Court found the identification procedure flawed, as the NBI line-up included strangers, making the pointing out less meaningful. Given the doubtful credibility of the lone testimony, the alleged improper motive of the complainant’s mother, and the constitutional presumption of innocence, all doubts were resolved in favor of the accused. The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof.