pp v vitero

8/16/2019 PP V VITERO

1/10


2/10

RT" hel that the p$osecution 8as onl) able to p$ove one of the si; counts of $ape a1ainst accuse-appellant. Thus, the RT" ec$ee<

/!R!FOR!, P$e&ises "onsie$e, @u1&ent is $ene$e finin1 the accuse !DM%NDOVIT!RO %I6TC be)on $easonable oubt of co&&ittin1 the c$i&e of RAP! fo$ one 4'5 count assuch c$i&e is efine an punishe b) A$ticle +-A, pa$a1$aph ', sub-pa$a1$aph a, in $elation to

A$ticle +-#, fifth pa$a1$aph, sub-pa$a1$aph ', The Revise Penal "oe, As A&ene b) Republic Act No. *3:3, an this "ou$t he$eb) i&poses on hi& the sup$e&e penalt) of D!AT/. As his civilliabilit), he shall pa) the victi& AAA the a&ount of 0:, pesos as civil ine&nit), the a&ount of:, pesos as &o$al a&a1es, an the a&ount of +:, pesos as e;e&pla$) a&a1es. /e shallpa) the costs of suit.

Fo$ the othe$ $e&ainin1 five 4:5 counts of $ape, finin1 $easonable oubt, this "ou$t fins theaccuse-appellant !DM%NDO VIT!RO NOT %I6TC, an he$eb) A"%ITS hi& of such c$i&inalcha$1es.

!levate the enti$e $eco$Es of the si; 45 above-entitle cases to the /ono$able Sup$e&e "ou$t fo$auto&atic $evie8 an @u1&ent b) such "ou$t en banc pu$suant to A$ticle 70 of The Revise Penal

"oe, As A&ene b) Section ++ of Republic Act No. 0:2.'

The enti$e $eco$s of the cases 8e$e b$ou1ht befo$e us, but 8e t$ansfe$$e the sa&e to the "ou$t of Appeals in a Resolution'' ate Au1ust +7, +7, pu$suant to ou$ $ulin1 in People v. Mateo.'+

The "ou$t of Appeals su&&a$iGe the evience of the p$osecution, to 8it<

!&uno Vite$o, accuse, an ### 8e$e &a$$ie on Ap$il :, '2*7. Out of the &a$$ia1e, the) be1otsi; 45 chil$en, fou$ 475 1i$ls 4AAA, the elest, """, DDD an !!!5 an t8o 4+5 bo)s 4FFF an5. In Septe&be$ '22, accuse an ### sepa$ate. She left the con@u1al ho&e b$in1in1 8ithhe$ """, !!!, an an establishe he$ o8n $esience at #a$an1a) ???, Polan1ui, Alba).

AAA, DDD an FFF 8e$e left to the custo) of the accuse. The) t$ansfe$$e to the house of thepa$ents of the accuse at #a$an1a) ???, 6i1ao "it), Alba). The sai house, a one-sto$e) st$uctu$ehas t8o 4+5 $oo&s. One $oo& 8as occupie b) the pa$ents of the accuse 8hile the othe$ 8asoccupie b) accuse an his th$ee chil$en.

So&eti&e in the &onth of Ap$il '2E2*, at a$oun 0 o=cloc> in the evenin1, AAA, then al$ea) thi$teen4'35 )ea$s ol, havin1 been bo$n on Ap$il 3, '2*:, 8as sleepin1 in thei$ $oo& 8ith the accuse, he$siste$ DDD, an he$ b$othe$ FFF. AAA slept in the e;t$e&e $i1ht po$tion of the $oo&, i&&eiatel)besie the 8all sepa$atin1 thei$ $oo& f$o& that of he$ 1$anpa$ents. To he$ left 8as the accusefollo8e b) DDD an FFF.

AAA 8as $ouse f$o& he$ sleep 8hen she felt so&ebo) on top of he$. hen she opene he$ e)es,she sa8 he$ o8n fathe$ &ountin1 he$. Afte$ st$ippin1 AAA na>e, accuse b$ou1ht out his penis aninse$te it into AAA=s va1ina an &ae a pu&pin1 &otion. At the sa&e ti&e, he 8as >issin1 he$ lipsan nec> an fonlin1 he$ b$easts. AAA felt sea$in1 pain an he$ va1ina ble. She sta$te to c$), buthe 8as un&ove an 8a$ne he$ not to &a>e an) noise. She t$ie to $esist his le8 esi$es, but he$effo$ts 8e$e in vain. She i not shout fo$ help because she fea$e accuse 8ho ha a +-inch >nifebesie hi& &i1ht >ill he$. Afte$ $avishin1 AAA, accuse $esse hi&self an 8ent bac> to sleep.#ecause of the ha$$o8in1 e;pe$ience she suffe$e f$o& the hans of he$ o8n fathe$, AAA 8as notable to sleep an)&o$e. AAA i not $epo$t he$ o$eal to he$ 1$anpa$ents fo$ fea$ the) 8oul onl)scol he$.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt12


3/10

So&eti&e in '22*, bet8een the &onths of Ma) an Septe&be$, appellant b$ou1ht AAA to the houseof his siste$ Salvacion at 6ian, #atan1as.

Meanti&e, ///, AAA=s &ate$nal 1$anfathe$, visite his au1hte$ ###, an sho8e to he$ ananon)&ous lette$ statin1 that AAA ha been $ape b) Ehe$ fathe$. The$eafte$, ### 8ent to seeSalvacion, he$ siste$-in-la8 in he$ house at 6ian, #atan1as to loo> fo$ AAA, but she i not fin he$.

She, ho8eve$, 1ot 8o$ that AAA ha al$ea) 1one ho&e. F$ust$ate an 8ea$), ### 8ent bac> to#icol an loo>e fo$ AAA in he$ 1$anpa$ents= house at #a$an1a) ???, 6i1ao "it), Alba), but thehouse 8as e&pt). ### lea$ne that AAA ha been b$ou1ht bac> to 6ian, #atan1as.

She finall) foun AAA in the house of he$ e&plo)e$ in 6ian, #atan1as in Nove&be$ +. ### as>e AAA if she 8as inee $ape b) he$ fathe$. AAA isclose that accuse $avishe he$ si; 45 ti&es8hile the) 8e$e still livin1 in he$ 1$anpa$ents= house. /e usuall) $ape AAA at ni1ht 8hen she anhe$ siblin1s 8e$e al$ea) sleepin1 in thei$ $oo&. %pon lea$nin1 of he$ suffe$in1, she b$ou1ht AAA8ith he$ to uinobatan, Alba). The) $epo$te the incient to the 6i1ao Police Station an 8ith thehelp of the Depa$t&ent of Social elfa$e an Develop&ent 4DSD5, the) 8ent to see a octo$ fo$

AAA=s &eical e;a&ination.

On Nove&be$ '0, +, D$. 6ea F. Re&onte, the "it) /ealth Office$ of 6i1ao "it), e;a&ine AAA./e$ Meico-6e1al "e$tificate $eveale the follo8in1 finin1s<

enitalia< No$&al e;te$nal 1enitalia, nullipa$ous int$oitus, scant) pubic hai$ ove$ &ons pubis.

- 6abia &ino$a p$ot$uin1 be)on labia &a@o$a.

- /)&en not intact, p$esence of heale lace$ation at : position.

- Va1ina a&its e;a&inin1 fin1e$ 8ith ease.

- No ischa$1e no$ bloo note upon 8ith$a8al of the e;a&inin1 fin1e$.

- Patient 8as on he$ :th a) of &enst$uation 8hen the e;a&ination 8as one 4!;hibit H",H p.0, Reco$s5

D$. Re&onte testifie that se;ual inte$cou$se is the nu&be$ one cause of h)&enal lace$ation. '3

The evience fo$ the efense, on the othe$ han, 8as $ecapitulate as follo8s<

Accuse !&uno vi1o$ousl) enie the alle1ations a1ainst hi&. /e testifie that f$o& '22 to+, he 8as e&plo)e as a const$uction 8o$>e$ in Manila. /o8eve$, upon his $etu$n to Alba), helea$ne that he 8as c$i&inall) cha$1e 8ith $apin1 his o8n au1hte$ AAA. /e fu$the$ state thatsuch cha$1e 8as fab$icate b) his 8ife. Acco$in1 to hi&, AAA 8as not 8o$>in1 as house help in

#atan1as. She @ust sta)e 8he$e his siste$ $esies.

Fo$ his pa$t, I$eneo Vite$o co$$obo$ate the testi&onies of the accuse. /e testifie that in '22,8hile 8o$>in1 in Manila, accuse sta)e in his house fo$ t8o 4+5 8ee>s. In fact, it 8as he 8ho$eco&&ene the accuse to his f$ien 8ho 8as a const$uction fo$e&an. It 8as onl) in +, 8henhe $etu$ne to Alba).

/is siste$ Vi$1inia atteste that in '22, accuse left Alba) as she 8as the one 8ho finance his fa$ein 1oin1 to Manila.'7

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt14


4/10

In its Decision ate (ul) '*, +, the "ou$t of Appeals affi$&e the @u1&ent of conviction of theRT". /o8eve$, the penalt) 8as &oifie because of Republic Act No. 237. Accuse-appellant 8assentence to suffe$ the penalt) of $eclusion pe$petua in lieu of eath. The ispositive po$tion of theappellate cou$t=s Decision is 9uote he$eune$<

/!R!FOR!, the appeale Decision ate Octobe$ 2, +3 of the RT", #$anch '3, 6i1ao "it),

finin1 appellant !&uno Vite$o 1uilt) of the c$i&e of 9ualifie $ape is he$eb) AFFIRM!D in toto. Inlieu of the eath penalt) i&pose b) the t$ial cou$t, appellant is he$eb) sentence to suffe$ thepenalt) of R!"6%SION P!RP!T%A, pu$suant to Republic Act No. 237. As his civil l iabilit), he shallpa) the victi& AAA the a&ount of 0:, pesos as civil ine&nit), the a&ount of :, pesos as&o$al a&a1es an the a&ount of +:, pesos as e;e&pla$) a&a1es. /e shall pa) the cost ofsuit.

"osts e officio.':

%nete$$e, accuse-appellant file his Notice of Appeal' an b$ou1ht his case befo$e us.

#oth plaintiff-appellee'0 an accuse-appellant'* file thei$ $espective Manifestations statin1 that the)

8e$e no lon1e$ filin1 supple&ental b$iefs an 8e$e aoptin1 the b$iefs the) sub&itte to the "ou$t of Appeals.

Accuse-appellant see>s his ac9uittal on the sole 1$oun that<

T/! TRIA6 "O%RT RAV!6C !RR!D IN "ONVI"TIN A""%S!D-APP!66ANT OF T/! "RIM!"/AR!D D!SPIT! T/! FAI6%R! OF T/! PROS!"%TION TO PROV! /IS %I6T #!CONDR!ASONA#6! DO%#T Accuse-appellant essentiall) a$1ues that AAA=s testi&on) 8as Hhi1hl)inc$eible an illo1icalH'2 as she ha a&ple oppo$tunit) to as> fo$ help. Acco$in1 to AAA he$self, atthe ti&e of the alle1e $ape, he$ siblin1s 8e$e sleepin1 $i1ht besie he$ an accuse-appellant in the$oo&, 8hile he$ 1$anpa$ents 8e$e $i1ht in the ne;t $oo&.+ Accuse-appellant also hi1hli1hts AAA=sela) in $epo$tin1 the pu$po$te $ape an institutin1 a c$i&inal case a1ainst hi&, an fu$the$ i&plies

that AAA &i1ht have so&e siniste$ o$ ulte$io$ &otive in falsel) cha$1in1 hi& 8ith $ape. Mo$eove$,accuse-appellant=s alibi that he 8as livin1 an 8o$>in1 in Manila f$o& '22 to + 8asco$$obo$ate b) t8o 8itnesses.+'

The$e is no &e$it in the instant appeal. e fin no $eason to istu$b the finin1s of the t$ial an theappellate cou$ts.

Accuse-appellant 8as cha$1e 8ith 9ualifie $ape, efine an punishable une$ the follo8in1p$ovisions of the Revise Penal "oe, as a&ene b) Republic Act No. *3:3< A$ticle +-A. Rape,hen an /o8 "o&&itte. Rape is co&&itte

'. #) a &an 8ho shall have ca$nal >no8le1e of a 8o&an une$ an) of the follo8in1 ci$cu&stances<

a. Th$ou1h fo$ce, th$eat o$ inti&iationB

; ; ; ;

A$ticle +-#. Penalties. Rape une$ pa$a1$aph ' of the ne;t p$ecein1 a$ticle shall be punisheb) $eclusion pe$petua.

; ; ; ;

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt21


5/10

The eath penalt) shall also be i&pose if the c$i&e of $ape is co&&itte 8ith an) of the follo8in1a11$avatin1J9ualif)in1 ci$cu&stances<

'. hen the victi& is une$ ei1hteen 4'*5 )ea$s of a1e an the offene$ is a pa$ent, ascenant, steppa$ent, 1ua$ian, $elative b) consan1uinit) o$ affinit) 8ithin the thi$ civil e1$ee, o$ the co&&on-la8-spouse of the pa$ent of the victi&.

The ele&ents of the c$i&e cha$1e a1ainst accuse-appellant a$e< 4a5 the victi& is a fe&ale ove$ '+)ea$s but une$ '* )ea$s of a1eB 4b5 the offene$ is a pa$ent, ascenant, steppa$ent, 1ua$ian,$elative b) consan1uinit) o$ affinit) 8ithin the thi$ civil e1$ee, o$ the co&&on-la8 spouse of thepa$ent of the victi&B an 4c5 the offene$ has ca$nal >no8le1e of the victi& eithe$ th$ou1h fo$ce,th$eat, o$ inti&iation.++

The$e is no ispute that the fi$st t8o ele&ents e;ist in this case. Docu&enta$) an testi&onialevience, incluin1 accuse-appellant=s o8n a&ission, establish that AAA is the au1hte$ ofaccuse-appellant an ### an she 8as bo$n on Ap$il 3, '2*:. This &eans that AAA 8as al&ost o$ al$ea) '3 )ea$s ol 8hen she 8as $ape in Ap$il '22*.

As to the thi$ ele&ent of the c$i&e, both the RT" an the "ou$t of Appeals $ule that it 8as ul)p$oven as 8ell, 1ivin1 8ei1ht an c$eence to AAA=s testi&on). AAA 8as able to esc$ibe in etailho8 accuse-appellant &ounte he$, un$esse he$, an successfull) penet$ate he$ a1ainst he$8ill, one ni1ht in Ap$il '22*. The RT" esc$ibe AAA=s testi&on) to be Hf$an>, p$obable, lo1ical anconclusive,H+3 8hile the "ou$t of Appeals ecla$e it to be Hfo$th$i1ht an c$eibleH+7 an Hi&p$essivel)clea$, efinite, an convincin1.H+: Relevant he$ein is ou$ p$onounce&ents in People v.Man@a$es+ that<

In a p$osecution fo$ $ape, the accuse &a) be convicte solel) on the basis of the testi&on) of thevicti& that is c$eible, convincin1, an consistent 8ith hu&an natu$e an the no$&al cou$se ofthin1s, as in this case. The$e is a pletho$a of cases 8hich ten to isfavo$ the accuse in a $apecase b) holin1 that 8hen a 8o&an ecla$es that she has been $ape, she sa)s in effect all that isnecessa$) to sho8 that $ape has been co&&itte an, 8he$e he$ testi&on) passes the test ofc$eibilit), the accuse can be convicte on the basis the$eof. Fu$the$&o$e, the "ou$t has $epeatel)ecla$e that it ta>es a ce$tain a&ount of ps)cholo1ical ep$avit) fo$ a )oun1 8o&an to concoct asto$) 8hich 8oul put he$ o8n fathe$ to @ail fo$ the $est of his $e&ainin1 life an $a1 the $est of thefa&il) incluin1 he$self to a lifeti&e of sha&e. Fo$ this $eason, cou$ts a$e incline to 1ive c$eit to thest$ai1htfo$8a$ an consistent testi&on) of a &ino$ victi& in c$i&inal p$osecutions fo$ $ape.

; ; ; hen the issue focuses on the c$eibilit) of the 8itnesses o$ the lac> of it, the assess&ent ofthe t$ial cou$t is cont$ollin1 because of its uni9ue oppo$tunit) to obse$ve the 8itness an the latte$=se&eano$, conuct, an attitue especiall) u$in1 the c$oss-e;a&ination unless co1ent $easonsictate othe$8ise. Mo$eove$, it is an establishe $ule that finin1s of fact of the t$ial cou$t 8ill not beistu$be on appeal unless so&e facts o$ ci$cu&stances of 8ei1ht have been ove$loo>e,&isapp$ehene, o$ &isinte$p$ete 8hich 8oul othe$8ise &ate$iall) affect the isposition of the

case. ; ; ;. 4"itations o&itte.5

e $eite$ate that the $ule is that the finin1s of the t$ial cou$t, its calib$ation of the testi&onies of the8itnesses, an its assess&ent of the p$obative 8ei1ht the$eof, as 8ell as its conclusions ancho$eon sai finin1s a$e acco$e $espect if not conclusive effect. This is t$ue$ if such finin1s 8e$eaffi$&e b) the appellate cou$t. hen the t$ial cou$t=s finin1s have been affi$&e b) the appellatecou$t, as in the case at ba$, sai finin1s a$e 1ene$all) binin1 upon us. e fin no $eason to epa$tf$o& the 1ene$al $ule.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt26


6/10

Accuse-appellant=s atte&pts at a&a1in1 AAA=s c$eibilit) a$e unpe$suasive. AAA=s account thataccuse-appellant 8as able to have ca$nal >no8le1e of he$ in Ap$il '22* 8as co$$obo$ate b) the$esults of D$. Re&onte=s ph)sical e;a&ination of AAA, sho8in1 h)&enal lace$ation at : o=cloc>position, inicatin1 se;ual inte$cou$se.

That AAA i not shout fo$ help shoul not be ta>en a1ainst he$. In People v. Sale,+0 8e $e@ecte a

si&ila$ a$1u&ent $aise b) the accuse-appellant the$ein, thus<

Thi$. Accuse-appellant li>e8ise foun it suspicious 8h) the p$ivate co&plainant i not shout fo$help 8hile she 8as bein1 $ape consie$in1 that the bun>house 8he$e the alle1e $apes occu$$e is9uite nea$ seve$al offices an builin1s 8he$e people also sta) u$in1 the ni1ht. Acco$in1 toaccuse-appellant, the act of co&plainant in not shoutin1 fo$ help 8hile she 8as bein1 &oleste isnot consistent 8ith co&&on e;pe$ience as she shoul have shoute fo$ help as she >ne8 full) 8ellthat the$e 8e$e people nea$b).

A1ain, the a$1u&ent of accuse-appellant ese$ves scant consie$ation. Diffe$ent people $eactiffe$entl) to iffe$ent situations an the$e is no stana$ fo$& of hu&an behavio$al $esponse 8henone is conf$onte 8ith a f$i1htful e;pe$ience. hile the $eaction of so&e 8o&en, 8hen face 8ith

the possibilit) of $ape, is to st$u11le o$ shout fo$ help, still othe$s beco&e vi$tuall) catatonic becauseof the &ental shoc> the) e;pe$ience. In the instant case, it is not inconceivable o$ i&p$obable thatEp$ivate co&plainant, bein1 of tene$ a1e, 8oul be inti&iate into silence b) the th$eats anactions of he$ fathe$. 4!&phasis supplieB citations o&itte.5

e have also p$eviousl) p$onounce that in incestuous $ape cases, the fathe$=s abuse of the &o$alascenanc) an influence ove$ his au1hte$ can sub@u1ate the latte$=s 8ill the$eb) fo$cin1 he$ to o8hateve$ he 8ants. Othe$8ise state, the &o$al an ph)sical o&inion of the fathe$ is sufficient toco8 the victi& into sub&ission to his beastl) esi$es.+* !ven so, it is notable in this case thataccuse-appellant i not onl) use his &o$al ascenanc) an influence ove$ AAA as he$ fathe$, hee&plo)e actual fo$ce an inti&iation upon he$. AAA $ecounte on the stan that accuse-appellantHbo;eH he$ on he$ $i1ht shoule$, nea$ he$ a$&pit. hen AAA t$ie to push accuse-appellant a8a)f$o& he$ an to tu$n he$ bo) a8a) f$o& hi&, accuse-appellant pulle he$ bac>. Aitionall),

accuse-appellant ha a +-inch >nife close b) as he 8as se;uall) &olestin1 AAA.

AAA=s ela) in $epo$tin1 the $ape is une$stanable. As 8e ecla$e in People v. Sino$o+2<

At the outset, 8e note that the initial $eluctance of a $ape victi& to publicl) $eveal the assault on he$vi$tue is neithe$ un>no8n no$ unco&&on. It is 9uite une$stanable fo$ a )oun1 1i$l to be hesitant o$isincline to co&e out in public an $elate a painful an ho$$ible e;pe$ience of se;ual violation. ; ;;.

Inee, the vacillation of a $ape victi& in &a>in1 a c$i&inal accusation oes not necessa$il) i&pai$he$ c$eibilit) as a 8itness. Dela) in $epo$tin1 the c$i&e neithe$ i&inishes he$ c$eibilit) no$une$&ines he$ cha$1es, pa$ticula$l) 8hen the ela) can be att$ibute to a patte$n of fea$ instille b)

the th$eats of one 8ho e;e$cises &o$al ascenanc) ove$ he$. 4"itations o&itte.5

As fo$ AAA, not onl) 8as he$ $apist he$ o8n fathe$, but she 8as also livin1 a&on1st he$ fathe$=s$elatives. AAA 8as even b$ou1ht fa$ a8a) f$o& he$ ho&eto8n in Alba) an &ae to sta) 8ithaccuse-appellant=s siste$ in #atan1as, isolatin1 he$ f$o& people an places she ha >no8n all he$life. It 8as onl) 8hen ### finall) foun AAA in + an too> AAA 8ith he$ i AAA felt safe enou1hto na$$ate to ### 8hat accuse-appellant i to he$ t8o )ea$s a1o.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt29


7/10

In cont$ast, accuse-appellant=s efenses, consistin1 of &e$e enial an alibi, fail to pe$suae us. As8e e;plaine in People v. O1a$te3<

This "ou$t has unifo$&l) hel, ti&e an a1ain, that both Henial an alibi a$e a&on1 the 8ea>est, ifnot the 8ea>est, efenses in c$i&inal p$osecution.H It is 8ell-settle that enial, if unsubstantiate b)clea$ an convincin1 evience, is a self-se$vin1 asse$tion that ese$ves no 8ei1ht in la8.

In People v. Palo&a$, 8e e;plaine 8h) alibi is a 8ea> an un$eliable efense<

Alibi is one of the 8ea>est efenses not onl) because it is inhe$entl) f$ail an un$eliable, but alsobecause it is eas) to fab$icate an ifficult to chec> o$ $ebut. It cannot p$evail ove$ the positiveientification of the accuse b) e)e8itnesses 8ho ha no i&p$ope$ &otive to testif) falsel).

; ; ;.

e have also ecla$e that in case of alibi, the accuse &ust sho8 that he ha st$ictl) co&plie 8iththe $e9ui$e&ents of ti&e an place< In the case of alibi, it is ele&enta$) case la8 that the$e9ui$e&ents of ti&e an place be st$ictl) co&plie 8ith b) the efense, &eanin1 that the accuse

&ust not onl) sho8 that he 8as so&e8he$e else but that it 8as also ph)sicall) i&possible fo$ hi& tohave been at the scene of the c$i&e at the ti&e it 8as co&&itte.1âwphi1 ; ; ;. 4"itations o&itte.5

Accuse-appellant=s alibi is that he 8as continuousl) livin1 an 8o$>in1 in Met$o Manila f$o& '22 to+. !ven 8hen accuse-appellant p$esente t8o co$$obo$atin1 8itnesses, 8e a$e not convince.Vil&a coul onl) testif) on 1ivin1 accuse-appellant the &one) 8hich he use to 1o to Met$o Manilain '22. I$eneo a&itte that accuse-appellant i not live pe$&anentl) at his house in Met$oManila, an accuse-appellant 8oul usuall) visit onl) u$in1 8ee>ens. Mo$eove$, the RT"obse$ve that<

The efense 8itnesses coul not ientif) the na&es of the const$uction co&panies that hi$e theaccuse !&uno Vite$o, thei$ e;act a$esses, &uch less ientifie the na&es of his co-8o$>e$s.

As can be seen of $eco$, nobo) a&on1 his 8o$>in1 co&panions testifie in cou$t to vouch fo$ hisph)sical p$esence at an) ti&e at an) of the const$uction 8o$>in1 sites in Met$o Manila. The8he$eabouts of the accuse !&uno Vite$o 8hile 8o$>in1 as a const$uction 8o$>e$ in Met$o Manila8as not catalo1ue 8ith ce$taint). hateve$ pe$io of ti&e he &i1ht have spent in Met$o Manila as aconst$uction 8o$>e$ is unclea$.

The accuse !&uno Vite$o a&itte that he 8o$>e in Met$o Manila as a const$uction labo$e$ an e&plo)&ent that 8as i$$e1ula$. As a labo$e$ 8hose 8o$> 8as i$$e1ula$, he ha 1aps in hise&plo)&ent. /e coul leave his i$$e1ula$ e&plo)&ent that 8as obviousl) te&po$a$) at an) ti&e he8ante to p$ocee else8he$e incluin1 to his 1$anfathe$=s house in ba$an1a) ???, 6i1ao "it).3'

/ence, even if it 8e$e t$ue that accuse-appellant ha been livin1 an 8o$>in1 in Met$o Manila f$o&'22 to +, it oes not e;clue the possibilit) that he 8ent ho&e fo$ visits to his 1$anpa$ent=shouse in 6i1ao "it), Alba), in the cou$se of the fou$ )ea$s. hat is neee is clea$ an convincin1p$oof that in Ap$il '22*, 8hen AAA 8as $ape, accuse-appellant 8as actuall) in Met$o Manila./o8eve$, accuse-appellant p$esente no such evience.

Afte$ affi$&in1 that accuse-appellant is 1uilt) be)on $easonable oubt of 9ualifie $ape, 8e &oveon to ete$&inin1 the p$ope$ penalties to be i&pose.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt31


8/10

hile 8e a1$ee 8ith the "ou$t of Appeals that pu$suant to Republic Act No. 237, accuse-appellantis sentence to suffe$ the penalt) of $eclusion pe$petua in lieu of eath, 8e specif) that accuse-appellant 8ill not be eli1ible fo$ pa$ole. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 237 e;plicitl) p$ovies<

Section 3. Pe$sons convicte of offenses punishe 8ith $eclusion pe$petua, o$ 8hose sentences 8illbe $euce to $eclusion pe$petua, b) $eason of this Act, shall not be eli1ible fo$ pa$ole une$ Act No.

7'3, othe$8ise >no8n as the Inete$&inate Sentence 6a8, as a&ene. 4!&phasis ou$s.5

e also &oif) the a&ount of a&a1es a8a$e to confo$& 8ith $ecent @u$isp$uence. 1âwphi1 Accuse-appellant is o$e$e to pa) AAA the a&ounts of P0:,. as civil ine&nit), P0:,. as &o$ala&a1es, anP3,. as e;e&pla$) a&a1es.3+ The a&ounts of a&a1es thus a8a$e a$esub@ect fu$the$ to inte$est of K pe$ annu& f$o& the ate of finalit) of this @u1&ent until the) a$efull) pai.33

/!R!FOR!, the appeal is DISMISS!D. The Decision ate (ul) '*, + of the "ou$t of Appealsin "A-.R. "R.-/.". No. 0 is AFFIRM!D IT/ MODIFI"ATIONS. Accuse-appellant!&uno Vite$o is %I6TC of 9ualifie $ape an is sentence to suffe$ the penalt) of $eclusionpe'petuaL 8ithout eli1ibilit) of pa$ole an is o$e$e to pa) AAA the a&ounts ofP0:,. as civil

ine&nit), P0:,. as &o$al a&a1es an P3,. as e;e&pla$) a&a1es. The a&ounts ofa&a1es a8a$e a$e sub@ect fu$the$ to inte$est of K pe$ annu& f$o& the ate of finalit) of this @u1&ent until the) a$e full) pai.

No p$onounce&ents as to costs.

SO ORD!R!D.

TERESITA ". LEONARDO!DE CASTRO Associate (ustice"hai$pe$son

! "ON"%R<

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO"hief (ustice

LUCAS P. #ERSAMIN Associate (ustice

MARTIN S. ILLARAMA, "R. Associate (ustice

"OSE PORTUGAL PERE$ Associate (ustice

" ! R T I F I " A T I O N

Pu$suant to Section '3, A$ticle VIII of the "onstitution, I ce$tif) that the conclusions in the aboveDecision ha been $eache in consultation befo$e the case 8as assi1ne to the 8$ite$ of the opinionof the "ou$ts Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO"hief (ustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#fnt33


9/10

Foo%&o%'(

Pe$ Raffle ate Ma$ch '3, +'3.

' Rollo, pp. 3-3B penne b) Associate (ustice !n$ico A. 6anGanas 8ith Associate (ustices#ienvenio 6. Re)es 4no8 a &e&be$ of this "ou$t5 an Re1alao !. Maa&bon1, concu$$in1.

+ "A $ollo, pp. '0-+0B penne b) (u1e Pe$o R. So$iao.

3 The Municipalit) of 6i1ao, P$ovince of Alba), beca&e the "it) of 6i1ao b) vi$tue of Republic Act No. 2* enacte on Feb$ua$) +', +'. Depenin1 on the ti&e f$a&e, 6i1ao is $efe$$eto he$ein as a &unicipalit) o$ a cit).

7 Inf$a.

: Inf$a.

An Act P$ohibitin1 the I&position of Death Penalt), 8hich too> effect on (une +7, +.

0 The $eal na&e of the victi& is 8ithhel to p$otect he$ ientit) an p$ivac) pu$suant toSection +2 of Republic Act No. 0', Section 77 of Republic Act No. 2++, an Section 7 of

A.M. No. 7-'-''-S". See ou$ $ulin1 in People v. "abal9uinto, :33 Phil. 03 4+5.

* Reco$s, p. +.

2 TSN, Octobe$ +2, ++, pp. 3-7.

' "A $ollo, p. +0.

'' I. at 32A.

'+ .R. Nos. '700*-*0, (ul) 0, +7, 733 S"RA 7.

'3 Rollo, pp. :-2.

'7 I. at '.

': I. at +2-3.

' "A $ollo, pp. '0:-'00.

'0 Rollo, pp. 3-3*.

'* I. at 3+-37.

'2 "A $ollo, p. 70.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt19


10/10

+ I. at :.

+' I. at :3.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_175327_2013.html#rnt21

pp v vitero

Documents