G.R. No. 218245 , January 17, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Jesus Empuesto y Socatre, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jesus Empuesto, was charged with rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on July 3, 2005, in Danao, Bohol, Empuesto stealthily entered the house of the victim, AAA, through a hole in the bamboo floor while she and her four children were sleeping. Armed with a bolo belonging to AAA’s household, he threatened to kill her and her children if she made noise. He then forced her to remove her underwear and, while she was breastfeeding her youngest child, proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her against her will. The act was witnessed by AAA’s eight-year-old daughter, BBB, who was awake but immobilized by fear. AAA reported the incident the same day and underwent a medico-legal examination.
In his defense, Empuesto interposed alibi. He claimed he was at a community vigil for a deceased barangay captain from the evening of July 2 until the morning of July 3, 2005, and was continuously in the company of his brother and a cousin. He asserted he was arrested that morning while returning to the vigil site.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, giving great weight to the credible, straightforward, and consistent testimony of AAA. Her detailed account of the threat, the sexual assault, and her immediate reporting and medical examination constituted clear proof of rape through force and intimidation. The testimony of her daughter, BBB, who heard the threats and the assault, provided material corroboration. The medico-legal findings, while not conclusive of force, were consistent with her narrative.
The Court rejected the defense of alibi as inherently weak and unsubstantiated. For alibi to prevail, it must be demonstrated that the accused was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the crime scene. Empuesto’s claimed location at the vigil was not proven to be an impossible distance from AAA’s house. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim, who had known the accused prior to the incident. The Court found no ill motive for AAA to falsely accuse Empuesto, a neighbor and a barangay tanod, of a grave crime that would expose her and her family to shame. The conviction was thus sustained, with modifications to the awarded damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.