G.R. No. 62673 ; May 15, 1991
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEXANDER CORRO y ESTALOSA and FREDLANDER BOTABARA y CEA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for rape filed by Marilyn Maglinte, a minor. She alleged that on May 28, 1979, in Quezon City, she was accosted by Alexander Corro and two others. They dragged her to a vacant lot where Fredlander Botabara was waiting. Corro, along with an alias “Samson” and Noel Tiglao, held her arms and pressed her mouth. Botabara then removed her panty, laid her down, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. After the incident, she reported to her employer and the police. Botabara and Corro were apprehended, pleaded not guilty, and were convicted by the trial court of rape in conspiracy.
The defense presented alibis. Corro claimed he was elsewhere, while Botabara asserted he was at his place of employment during the incident. Botabara’s employer testified he was at work that morning and was surprised when police arrested him. The trial court rejected these defenses and convicted both accused, prompting their appeal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of both accused-appellants for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It affirmed the conviction of Alexander Corro but reversed the conviction of Fredlander Botabara, acquitting him. For Corro, the Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient. The credible and categorical testimony of the victim, corroborated by her immediate report and the physical and emotional state observed by her co-worker, established his participation as a principal by indispensable cooperation. He actively restrained the victim, enabling the rape.
For Botabara, the Court ruled the evidence failed to meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution relied heavily on the victim’s identification during a police confrontation at a restaurant. However, this identification was deemed unreliable. The arresting officer’s testimony revealed the procedure was suggestive; the victim was asked to point out her assailant from a group where Botabara was the only one presented by the police. This falls short of the stringent requirements for a trustworthy out-of-court identification. Coupled with Botabara’s defense of alibi, which was corroborated by his employer who testified to his presence at work, the Court held that reasonable doubt existed. Consequently, Botabara was acquitted. Corro was ordered to pay moral damages.