G.R. No. 242830 . August 28, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ALLAN NIEVERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Allan Nievera, was charged with the rape of AAA, a 14-year-old minor, in Valenzuela City. The prosecution alleged that on December 17, 2014, Nievera lured AAA into his apartment, forced her to lie down, undressed her, and had carnal knowledge against her will. He threatened her not to report the incident. On December 29, 2014, Nievera again brought AAA to a hotel in Meycauayan, Bulacan, where he raped her a second time and intimidated her by showing a gun. The victim eventually disclosed the assaults to her sister. A medico-legal examination confirmed blunt force penetrating trauma to her hymen.
Nievera pleaded not guilty, presenting a defense of alibi and denial. He claimed the alleged rape in Valenzuela could not have occurred as he was in Marulas, Valenzuela City, collecting debts at the time. He asserted that the case was filed to extort money from him and questioned the trial court’s jurisdiction over the Bulacan incident. To support his alibi, he presented sworn affidavits from his wives and acquaintances.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of Allan Nievera for the crime of Rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the CA, giving great weight to the credible and categorical testimony of the victim. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the testimony of a victim, especially a minor, when credible and consistent, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. AAA’s detailed account of the force, intimidation, and subsequent threats was found to be natural and convincing. Her failure to immediately report the crime was reasonably explained by her fear of Nievera and of being forced to leave her home.
The Court rejected Nievera’s defense of alibi as inherently weak. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The Court found that Nievera’s claimed location in Marulas was within the immediate vicinity of the crime scene in Valenzuela, making his presence there not physically impossible. His denial, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim. The medico-legal findings corroborated her account. Thus, his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.