GR 72780; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 72780 February 13, 1992
SOTERO COLLADO, petitioner, vs. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, and HELEN TUBAY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sotero Collado was charged with Attempted Rape. The complaint alleged that on September 21, 1981, he forcibly entered the house of private respondent Helen Tubay while she was sleeping with her child. He lay on top of her, pointed a gun at her neck, threatened to kill her if she shouted, lifted her skirt, and attempted to remove his pants. The attempt was foiled when Tubay resisted and her child’s loud cries alerted her parents, prompting Collado to flee. The prosecution presented Tubay, her son Bernabe Jr., and police and medical witnesses. Tubay and her son positively identified Collado, testifying the room was illuminated by a gas lamp. The medical certificate showed Tubay sustained an abrasion on her neck.
Collado denied the accusation and interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed he was at a clinic in another town, about seven kilometers away, on the night of the incident. He was corroborated only by his nephew, Feliciano Collado. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Attempted Rape, a decision affirmed with modification by the Intermediate Appellate Court.
ISSUE
Whether the conviction of petitioner Sotero Collado for the crime of Attempted Rape is proper.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is proper. The appellate court correctly affirmed the trial court’s findings. The factual conclusions of the trial court, which had the direct opportunity to observe witness demeanor, are accorded great weight and respect on appeal. The positive identification of Collado by the victim, Helen Tubay, and her young son, Bernabe Tubay Jr., prevails over his weak defense of alibi. Both witnesses testified they clearly saw him under the illumination of a gas lamp, which this Court has recognized as sufficient for identification. The testimony of a child of sound mind, who understood the nature of an oath, is given full credence.
Collado’s alibi is inherently weak. For it to prosper, he must demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene and prove improper motive on the part of the identifying witnesses, which he failed to do. His alibi was supported only by his nephew, whose testimony carries less weight due to kinship. His failure to present the alleged attending physician from the clinic to corroborate his story further undermines his defense. The unexplained delay in reporting the incident does not impair the credibility of the charge, as it is sufficiently overcome by the clear and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.