032 - People v. Baro.docx

PEOPLE v. BARO  June 5, 2002 | Panganiban, J. J. | Introduction and Admissibility of  Evidence – Alibi igester! "an, #aya $race SUMMARY: %aro &as c'arged &it' ( counts of ra)e by #oda. *e )leaded not guilty and inter)osed t'e alibi t'at 'e &as in +atubig, ort'ern -amar &'en t'e alleged ra)es &ere committed. %ased solely on t'e com)lainants testimony, #"+ convicted 'im of ( counts of ra)e and sentenced 'im to reclusion )er)etua for eac' count. -+ reversed t'e #"+ decision and ac/uitted %aro. It 'eld t'at com)lainants testimony &as not credible, unable to )rove accuseds guilt beyond reasonable doubt. "'e accuseds defense of  alibi is valid. DOCTRINE:  An alibi is t'e )lea of 'aving been some&'ere ot'er t'an at t'e scene of t'e crime at t'e time of its commission. "o )ros)er, it must be demonstrated t'at t'e )erson c'arged &it' t'e crime &as not only some&'ere else &'en t'e oense &as committed, but &as so far a&ay t'at it &ould 'ave been )'ysically im)ossible to 'ave been at t'e )lace of t'e crime or its immediate  vicinity at t'e time of its commission. FACTS: ecember 1, 133 #oda 4ngotan led a complaint fo ! co"nt# of ap$  against Ernie %aro. It &as alleged t'at 'e ra)ed 'er on January 5, 1335, 6arc' 5, 1335 and A)ril 17, 1337, in 'er bedroom 82 armslengt' &ide and 19 armslengt' long:. #oda, along &it' 'er )arents, ; ot'er siblings and 1 uncle occu)ied t'e 2nd legal oicer r. ?reyra found lacerations in #odas 'ymen, o)ined t'at t'ese lacerations could 'ave been caused by any 'ard blunt ob@ect li=e a n erect male organ.  Accused>a))ellant %aro )leaded not guilty to all t'ree c'arges. *is alibi! 'e &as engaged in co)ra farming in +atubig, ort'ern -amar )rior to ovember 15, 1337, &'en 'e came to 6anila &it' 'is &ife and ( =id s to nd &or= u)on t'e re/uest and invitation of 'is niece 8#odas mom:. "'ey stayed at •

•

•

•

•

•

6ontessori, 6anila before transferring to t'e 'ouse of 'is niece &'ere t'ey stayed for about 1yr. #"+! %aro guilty of ( counts of ra)e reclusion )er)etua for eac' count. 6edico>legal re)ort and testimony of r. ?reyra bolstered #odas claim t'at s'e 'ad eB)erienced violent seBual intercourse at a young age. Accuseds alibi and denial cannot )revail over t'e )ositive testimony and identication of com)lainant.

RULIN%: A))eal granted. "'e guilt of t'e a))ellant &as not )roven beyond reasonable doubt. #"+ decision #ECE#-E and a))ellant A+DI""E.  &oN t'$ complainant(# complainant(# t$#timon) i# c$*i+l$ , NO. F'ile it is true t'at t'e com)lainants testimony may be t'e sole basis for convicting t'e accused in a ra)e case, t'e com)laining &itness testimony must be credible. In revie&ing ra)e cases, t'is +ourt 'as al&ays been guided by t'e follo&ing )rinci)les! 8a: an accusation of ra)e can be made &it' facility – &'ile it may be diicult for t'e )rosecution to )rove, it is usually more diicult for t'e )erson accused, t'oug' innocent, to dis)rove 8b: in vie& of t'e intrinsic nature of t'e crime in &'ic' only t&o )ersons are usually involved, t'e testimony of t'e com)lainant must be scrutiniGed &it' eBtreme caution and 8c: t'e evidence for t'e )rosecution must stand or fall on its o&n merits – it cannot be allo&ed to dra& strengt' from t'e &ea=ness of t'e evidence for t'e defense.  A revie& of t'e records of t'e case creates reasonable doubt as to accuseds guilt because of! 81: delay in ling t'e com)laint, 82: failure of t'e )rosecution to )rove accuseds moral ascendancy over com)lainant, 8(: lac= of su))ort from t'e records for t'e #"+s nding of violent seBual intercourse, and 8H: discre)ancies in t'e com)lainants testimony. 81: "'e com)laint &as led mor e t'an 2 years after t'e rst o ra)e and more t'an a year after t'e t'ird one allegedly occurred. *er eB)lanation for t'e delay &as t'e t'reat of t'e a))ellant to =ill 'er, but s'e re)orted t'e incident &'ile 'e &as still residing &it' 'er family because s'e no longer &anted to ruin 'er life. 82: *e &as not muc' older t'an 'er brot'ers. It &as not o s'o&n &'et'er 'e &as 'er benefactor or &'et'er 'e eBercised disci)line over 'er. Presum)tions of moral ascendancy cannot and s'ould not )revail over t'e constitutional )resum)tion of innocence. •

•

•

o

o

8(: "'e re)ort merely indicated 'ealed lacerations &ere found. "'ey &ere not )roven to 'ave been caused by t'e alleged ra)es. 8H: -'e re)orted t'e second ra) e rst and even as=ed &'at 'e &anted from 'er. +onsidering t'e cram)ed s)ace and /uietness of t'e nig't, t'e faintest cry from 'er &ould 'ave been 'eard by one or more of 'er family members. Eac' ra)e &as described in a very uniform and even seemingly systematic manner &'ic' raises t'e sus)icion t'at 'er testimony 'ad been coac'ed, re'earsed or contrived.

 &oN t'$ acc"#$*(# ali+i i# a pla"#i+l$ $-c"#$ , YES. 4n eac' of t'e dates of t'e alleged ra)es, %aro stated t'at 'e &as in +atubig, ort'ern -amar. It &ould ta=e 2H 'ours for a bus to travel from +atubig to 6anila. It &ould be 'ig'ly unli=ely for 'im to ta=e t'e 2H>'r bus ride to 6anila, commit t'e act and t'en return by +atubig by ta=ing anot'er 2H>'r bus ride. o evidence &as adduced by t'e )rosecution to )rove t'at a))ellant &as indeed in 6anila &'en t'e alleged ra)es &ere committed 8no testimony from momsiblings:.  An alibi is t'e )lea of 'aving been some&'ere ot'er t'an at t'e scene of t'e crime at t'e time of i ts commission. +ontrary to t'e common notion, alibi is not al&ays a &ea= defense. %ut to •

•

•

be valid for )ur)oses of eBoneration from a criminal c'arge, t'e defense of alibi must be so airtig't t'at it &ould admit of no eBce)tion. In order for it to )ros)er, it must be demonstrated t'at t'e )erson c'arged &it' t'e crime &as not only some&'ere else &'en t'e oense &as committed, but &as so far a&ay t'at it &ould 'ave been )'ysically im)ossible to 'ave been at t'e )lace of t'e crime or its immediate vicinity at t'e time of its commission. "'e reason is t'at no )erson can be in t&o )laces at t'e same time.

 &oN t'$ acc"#$*(# "ilt /a# pov$* +$)on* $a#ona+l$ *o"+t , NO. If t'e incul)atory facts and circumstances are ca)able of t&o or more eB)lanations, one of &'ic' is consistent &it' innocence and t'e ot'er &it' guilt, t'en t'e evidence does not )ass t'e test of moral certainty and is not suicient to su))ort a conviction. In order to convict t'e accused of a crime, t'e )rosecution must )roduce evidence s'o&ing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. "'e innocence of a defendant in a criminal case is al&ays • )resumed until t'e contrary is )roven. •