G.R. No. L-63451, May 31, 1984
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ernesto Espiritu, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Ernesto Espiritu, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Bangued, Abra, for the crime of rape against his sister-in-law, Marieta Trongco, a 12-year-old first-year high school student. The prosecution evidence established that on the afternoon of September 18, 1982, in Quimloong, Bucay, Abra, the appellant forcibly pulled Marieta to a forested area near a house where she had been watching television. He covered her mouth, boxed her in the stomach causing her to lose consciousness, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Upon regaining consciousness and returning home, Marieta immediately reported the assault to her father.
The defense interposed by the appellant was denial and alibi. He claimed he was in the neighboring barangay of Patok, Bucay, Abra, at the time of the incident, admitting only that he was in Quimloong in the morning of that same day. No witness was presented to corroborate his whereabouts. A medical examination conducted on Marieta the following day revealed an old hymenal laceration and a vaginal opening admitting two fingers, with a negative finding for spermatozoa.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape despite his defense of alibi and the medical findings indicating an old hymenal laceration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment giving greater weight to the complainant’s direct, positive, and credible testimony over the appellant’s weak alibi. The Court ruled that for alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but the physical impossibility of his being at the scene of the crime. Here, Patok was merely 3 to 4 kilometers from Quimloong, making it not only possible but easy for the appellant to have committed the crime and later retreated to Patok. His failure to return to his in-laws’ house after the report, remaining in Patok until his arrest, was considered a circumstance indicative of guilt.
Regarding the medical certificate, the Court found the appellant’s argument untenable. It emphasized that rape is consummated by carnal knowledge through force and intimidation, not by the virginity of the victim. The existence of an old hymenal laceration does not negate the occurrence of sexual intercourse on the date in question. The Court found no ill motive for the young complainant to falsely accuse her own brother-in-law and publicly expose herself to dishonor. Thus, the conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua with an indemnity of Fifteen Thousand Pesos were affirmed.