GR 74952; (March, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 74952 March 12, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERLY DALINOG, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On February 27, 1982, in Sitio Dolao, Balud, Masbate, the victim, Cerlina Armenton, who was nine months pregnant, went to fetch water from a well. The accused-appellant, Berly Dalinog, a second cousin of the victim’s mother, grabbed her, pushed her to the ground, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her despite her shouts and resistance. After the act, Dalinog threatened to kill the victim and her family if she reported the incident. The victim’s aunt, Linda Magno, heard the shouts and, upon approaching the well, saw Dalinog hurriedly leaving and found the victim crying with a torn dress and contusions. The incident was reported to the barangay authorities and subsequently to the police. A medical examination confirmed the presence of spermatozoa. Dalinog evaded arrest by bribing a process server and was only apprehended in 1984.
At trial, the prosecution presented the consistent testimonies of the victim and her aunt. The defense presented alibi, claiming Dalinog was in another town at the time, and attempted to impugn the victim’s credibility by alleging a motive of revenge due to a land dispute. The trial court found the accused guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting the defense of alibi and alleged motive.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded the highest respect on appeal, as it is in the best position to observe demeanor. The victim’s testimony was clear, consistent, and credible, detailing the force and intimidation used. Her immediate report of the crime to her aunt, barangay officials, and the police, coupled with the medical findings, bolstered her account. The Court found the defense of alibi weak and unsubstantiated, as it was not physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene. The alleged motive of land dispute was deemed insufficient to overturn the positive identification and the natural reaction of a victim. The Court also noted the aggravating circumstance of the victim’s advanced pregnancy, describing the act as “even more condemnable.” The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus upheld. Additionally, the Court modified the decision to award civil indemnity of P30,000.00 to the victim, which the trial court had omitted.