G.R. No. 181629 September 18, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ELIZARDO CABILES alias “SARDO,” Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Elizardo Cabiles, was charged with the rape of his nine-year-old niece, AAA, on May 9, 1995, in Hagonoy, Davao del Sur. The prosecution’s evidence established that appellant lured AAA and her younger sister to a grassy area under the pretense of picking guavas. After sending the sister away on an errand, appellant forcibly pinned AAA down, threatened her with a knife, and had carnal knowledge with her. AAA, fearing appellant’s threat to kill her and her father if she reported, kept silent about the incident for four years. She only disclosed the rape in 1999 after noticing appellant following her, prompting her father to have her medically examined. The medical findings revealed an old hymenal laceration consistent with sexual intercourse.
The defense presented a denial and alibi. Appellant claimed he was working in Diwalwal, Monkayo at the time of the alleged rape and only returned to the barangay in 1997. He alleged that the complaint was fabricated due to a prior land dispute with AAA’s father, which had been settled, and because he had admonished AAA for her unbecoming conduct a year before she filed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, giving great weight and respect to their assessment of witness credibility. AAA’s categorical, consistent, and straightforward testimony, which withstood rigorous cross-examination, was found credible and sufficient to establish the elements of rape through force and intimidation. The medical certificate corroborated her account. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a minor, is accorded great credibility when she recounts a harrowing experience in a candid and convincing manner.
The defense of denial and alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Appellant failed to establish such physical impossibility. His claim of ill-motive on the part of AAA’s family was deemed insufficient to overturn the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim. The delay in reporting the crime was satisfactorily explained by AAA’s young age and her genuine fear of appellant’s threats, which negated any implication of fabrication. Consequently, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded damages.