PEOPLE vs. MARLON BARSAGA ABELLA

PEOPLE vs. MARLON BARSAGA ABELLA
G.R. No. 177295, January 6, 2010

Leonardo-De Castro, J.:

Facts: Sometime in December 1999, the accused Marlon Abella, while armed with a knife and under the influence of liquor, entered the house of herein complainant [AAA] (real name of the victim was withheld by the court in its decision to protect her identity), and then and there have sexual intercourse with [AAA], a 38-year old woman of feeble mind (“moderate mental retardation” or intellectual quotient of a 7 to 8-year old child”), against her will. During the pendency of the case, [AAA] gave birth to a child. Accused stated that [AAA] was coached to testify against him in furtherance of the hostility between their families. He claims that [AAA]’s mental disability made he so subservient to her parents that she would believe everything that they tell her. The RTC convicted the accused of the crime of rape. The case was elevated to the CA which affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, the decision is under automatic review by this court.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused of the crime charged.
2. Whether or not the testimony of the victim is credible to convict the accused.
3. Whether or not the denial of the accused was not given due credit by the court.

Held: The high court in affirming the decision of the lower court and the CA stated the following:

1. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In People v. Andaya, [25] it was held that “sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape” with or without the attendance of force, threat, or intimidation.

2. By well-entrenched jurisprudence, the issue of credibility of witnesses is “a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts” and “[a]bsent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.”

3. It has been stressed, moreover, that the bare denials and uncorroborated alibis of an accused cannot overcome the positive identification of the accused and straightforward recounting of the accused’s commission of a crime. In People v. Nieto, this Court held:

It is an established jurisprudential rule that a mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes attributed to him. The defense of alibi is likewise unavailing. Firstly, alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law. Secondly, alibi is unacceptable when there is a positive identification of the accused by a credible witness. Lastly, in order that alibi might prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused has been somewhere else during the commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.