GR 179190; (January, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179190, January 20, 2009
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Alberto L. Mahinay, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Alberto L. Mahinay was charged with the rape of AAA, a 15-year-old mentally retarded minor, on April 5, 1998, in Talisay, Cebu. The prosecution evidence established that on that evening, AAA was lured by a neighbor, Sidra, to Sidra’s house where Mahinay forced her into the kitchen, touched her breast, forced her to lie down, removed her clothing, threatened to kill her if she shouted, and then raped her. AAA reported the incident to her mother, BBB, five days later after being informed by a barangay tanod. A medical examination revealed an incomplete healed laceration. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Mahinay was at his aunt’s house at the time, and alleged that the charge was fabricated due to prior conflicts between the families. The Regional Trial Court convicted Mahinay of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification to the damages. Mahinay appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the rape was improbable due to other people being present, AAA’s insufficient resistance, and her delay in reporting the incident.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Alberto L. Mahinay for the crime of rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and entitled to the highest respect. It rejected Mahinay’s arguments: (1) The presence of other people outside the house does not make rape improbable, as lust respects no time or place. (2) Delay in reporting a rape does not indicate fabrication, as victims often bear the shame silently or fear the offender’s threats. (3) AAA’s failure to shout does not negate rape, as people react differently to emotional stress, and her testimony clearly showed resistance and lack of consent, coupled with threats from Mahinay. The Court found Mahinay’s alibi weak and uncorroborated, and noted his flight as an indication of guilt. AAA’s credible testimony, corroborated by medical findings of penetration, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in toto.