G.R. No.

107235 March 2, 1994

PEOPLE
OF
THE
vs.
LADISLAO ABO Y DE ALDAY, accused-appellant.

PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Hector B. Almeyda for accused-appellant.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Accused Ladislao Abo y de Alday appeals from the decision of Branch 58 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City in Criminal Case No. 86-439, 1 promulgated on 27 August
1992, finding him guilty of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, to pay the offended party, Adelia Velasco de Chavez, the amount of
P25,000.00 as indemnity, and to pay the costs. 2
The information in Criminal Case No. 86-439, which the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon filed
on 15 August 1986, reads as follows:
The undersigned, accuses Ladislao Abo y de Alday (prisoner), upon
complaint filed by the offended party, of the crime of rape, committed as
follows:
That on or about the 13th day of May, 1986, at
Barangay San Agustin, Municipality of Tiaong,
Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, with lewd design, by means of force,
threat, physical violence and intimidation, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of one Adelia Velasco de Chavez,
against her will. 3

she was near the boundary of Barangay San Agustin and Barangay
San Jose, a man whom she later identified as herein accused,
LADISLAO ABO, stopped ("hinarang") her and raped her. As she was
walking, accused came from behind her and held her by the neck and
forcibly dragged her to the bushes. She struggled but accused boxed
her and she was hit on the right portion of her face, right chin and on
the abdomen. Accused then removed her hanging pants and her panty
and succeeded in inserting his organ inside the organ of Adelia de
Chavez. To prevent accused from inserting his organ Adelia de Chavez
tried putting her two legs close together but accused put his knee on
the insides of her thighs and he was able to separate her legs and he
then put himself on top of her and with her legs separated he
succeeded to insert his organ inside the organ of Adelia de Chavez.
While he was doing this, accused told Adelia de Chavez, "pagbigyan
mo ako kung hindi papatayin kita". The place where this incident took
place had coconut trees and banana trees. While it was not so forested,
a person lying down could not be seen. The nearest house to the place
is about half a kilometer away. After satisfying himself, accused got up
and as Adelia de Chavez tried to get up accused kicked her at the side
of her right thigh and told her he will kill her. As accused put on his
shorts and moved a little away from her and turned his back on her,
Adelia de Chavez was able to stand up, put on her pants, without
bothering to put on her panty, and ran away shouting. After running four
to ten meters, she saw a person on a bike and asked for help. As the
person she met is not known to her they parted ways when the accused
was already gone and she proceeded to the house of Arsenio Arias
nearby to ask for help. As Arsenio Arias was out at the time, Adelia de
Chavez told the wife of Arsenio Arias that she was raped. When
summoned, Arsenio Arias talked to Adelia de Chavez and she
described her assaillant [sic] to him as being well-built, tall and dark,
round face with a scar on the right side of the face.

The judgment of conviction is based on the evidence for the prosecution as developed
from the testimonies of Adelia Velasco de Chavez, barangay captain Armando Barcelona,
and Dr. Vicente Umali. The trial court summarized the evidence thus:

When medically examined shortly after by Dr. Vicente Umali, the Rural
Health doctor of the municipality of Tiaong, Adelia de Chavez was
found to have suffered a contusion with slight swelling on the right
temporal region, slight contusion with hematoma on the anterior aspect
of the neck, and superficial linear abrasion 1 cm. long at the inferior
border of the lower right mandible. As Adelia de Chavez is a married
woman with three children, internal examination did not reveal
significant information of sexual assault. The vaginal canal is lax and
easily admits two fingers. Sarseanginous fluid was noted filling up the
vaginal canal at the vicinity of the cervical opening, which may or may
not be semen. No fresh bleeding or laceration was noted.

From the evidence thus presented, the Court finds that in the early
afternoon of May 13, 1986 Adelia Velasco de Chavez, a married
woman, was talking [sic] on her way home to Barangay San Jose,
Tiaong, Quezon coming from Barangay Lalig of the same town. When

While she was being sexually assaulted, Adelia de Chavez was able to
take a good look at her assaillant [sic]. It was early afternoon and the
visibility was good being broad daylight. While she then did not know
his name she could recognize him if she will see him again. The

EVIDENCE: DIGEST: ABO CASE

following day she saw the assaillant [sic] again. She was then with her
sister-in-law on their way to an "albularyo" (quack doctor) in Barangay
San Jose when she saw him at the ricefield. It was to him that her
sister-in-law asked about the way to the "albularyo". Adelia de Chavez
told her sister-in-law that the person she talked with was the one who
raped her. They forthwith returned home and Adelia de Chavez told her
husband, Raymundo de Chavez, about seeing the person who raped
her. A policeman was fetched and they, with the policeman, proceeded
to the place where the assaillant [sic] was seen and they brought him to
the police station at the poblacion where Adelia de Chavez formally
pointed to accused Ladislao Abo as the person who raped her. Having
been identified and apprehended, Adelia de Chavez signed and filed a
sworn complaint for rape against accused Ladislao Abo. 4
The accused, on the other hand, raised the defense of alibi, which was supported by the
testimonies of Reynaldo Catibog 5 and Florencio Abo; 6 tried to cast doubts on his
identification by the offended party, through the testimonies of Arsenio Arias, 7 Ernesto
Dimaculangan, 8 Raul Umali, 9 and Patrolman Felino Noguera; 10 and sought to prove
ulterior motives on Adelia's part by claiming that there was bad blood between him and her
family because of a controversy concerning the irrigation of their ricefields and their
political differences. The alleged ill motive was testified to by Florencio Abo, brother of the
accused. 11
In regard to his defense of alibi, the accused testified that he was working at a farm in San
Jose, Tiaong, Quezon, in the afternoon of 13 May 1986, together with Erickson del Mundo,
Reynaldo Catibog, and Florencio Abo. He went to the farm between 12 noon and 1:00 p.m.
and left for home at past 5:00 p.m. He never left the farm before 5:00 p.m. When he
reached his house, his wife informed him that somebody was raped and that the victim
was in the house of Arsenio Arias. He changed his clothes, returned the shovel he had
borrowed from Ernesto Sandoval, and proceeded to the house of Arsenio Arias to see the
rape victim. On the way, he met the group of Andres de Chavez and his brothers-in-law.
Andres informed him that his daughter-in-law, Adelia de Chavez, was raped and that they
were on their way to the poblacion. He recognized Adelia de Chavez, who was then with
the group standing beside Andres and who looked at him but did not show any reaction.
After the meeting, he went home.
The following day, as he was working on the farm, he saw Avelina de Chavez and her
daughter. Avelina asked him the way to the place of Eric and he showed her the way.
About noon, his sister told him that he was being charged with rape, so he went home. The
police went to his house to bring him to the station, but he told them that he would just
change his clothes after which he would follow them to the police headquarters. Then he
went to his uncle, Lauro Abo, who accompanied him to the police headquarters with
Patrolman Miguel Abo, now deceased. At the police headquarters, he talked with
Raymundo de Chavez, husband of Adelia de Chavez, who told him, "Ikaw pala,
dinagdagan mo pa ang galit ng aming pamilya." He was then brought to the investigation
room with the spouses Raymundo and Adelia de Chavez where, in the presence of
Patrolman Noguera and Patrolman Castillo, Adelia de Chavez pointed to him as the one
who had raped her. He was investigated in the presence of Lauro Abo, a barangay
councilman, and Patrolman Miguel Abo. 12

Arsenio Arias testified that the offended party described the rapist to him as being wellbuilt, tall, dark, and round faced with a 1-inch long scar on the right side. When he was
about to go and look for the man so described, Ernesto Dimaculangan arrived and he
(Arsenio) asked the offended part if the rapist was as big as Ernesto Dimaculangan to
which she answered that the rapist was bigger. 13
In convicting the accused, the trial court debunked his claim that the prosecution witnesses
were motivated by ill will and that the identification of the accused was questionable:
Right after, at the earliest opportunity, Adelia de Chavez fled from her
assaillant [sic] and reported and sought the help of the first person she
saw, a passing person whose name she does not know riding on a
bike. After the assaillant [sic] had gone away, she went to the nearest
house, the house of Arsenio Arias, and reported the incident and at the
same time sought their help in apprehending the assaillant [sic]. No
motive could therefore be ascribed to the complainant in prosecuting
the accused other than being aggrieved by the sexual assault against
her committed by the accused.
xxx xxx xxx
While being raped, in broad daylight being in the early afternoon,
complainant was able to take a good look at her attacker. While she did
not know his name, she could recognize him if she will see him again.
Indeed she recognized him when she saw him again the following day.
That same day, consequent to her report to her husband, her attacker
was brought to the police station of Tiaong, Quezon and there she
formally pointed to the accused as the person who raped her. 14
As to the alleged scar and the height of the accused compared to Ernesto Dimaculangan,
the trial court said:
Viewing the evidence in this case in its entirety, such inaccuracy of
description is taken at mere minor inconsistencies insufficient to
discredit the victim's claim that it is accused who raped her. The fact is
that the victim had taken a good look at her attacker and readily
recognized him when she saw him again the next day.
The Court very well considers that a woman who had just been
subjected to such a traumatic experience of being sexually assaulted,
especially where the evidence of the force used against her was visibly
reflected by the contusions, hematoma and abrasions on her face and
neck, could not be expected to give a more elaborate and detailed
description of her attacker. Most certainly, a woman being sexually
assaulted could not be in a position to accurately measure the height of
her attacker.15

EVIDENCE: DIGEST: ABO CASE

Unable to accept the judgment, the accused appealed. He ascribes to the trial court the
commission of the following errors:
I.
IN
FINDING
THE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
GUILTY
BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME
OF
RAPE
NOTWITHSTANDING
THE
FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY
OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM IS
NOT
ONLY
UNCORROBORATED BUT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH HUMAN
EXPERIENCE AND BEHAVIOR;
II.
IN
VIEWING
THE
INACCURACY
OF
THE
DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY THE
ALLEGED VICTIM AS A "MERE
MINOR
INCONSISTENCY"
INSUFFICIENT TO DISCREDIT
THE ALLEGED VICTIM'S CLAIM
THAT IT WAS DEFENDANT
WHO RAPED HER;
III. IN NOT BELIEVING THE
TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT
AS CORROBORATED BY HIS
WITNESSES; AND
IV. IN OBVIOUSLY RELYING ON
THE INHERENT WEAKNESS
OF THE DEFENSE RAISED, I.E.
ALIBI,
THAN
ON
THE
SUPPOSED STRENGTH (OR
LACK
OF
IT)
OF
THE
EVIDENCE
FOR
THE
PROSECUTION
IN
CONVICTING
THE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 16
We are, once more, called upon to consider the following well-entrenched principles in
rape cases:
1. An accusation for rape can be
made with facility: it is difficult to
prove but more difficult for the

person
accused,
innocent, to disprove;

though

2. In view of the intrinsic nature

of the crime of rape where only
two persons are usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; and
3. The evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the
defense. 17
We have carefully examined the records of this case and have assiduously gone over the
testimonies of the witnesses. We are satisfied that the prosecution's evidence established
the guilt of the accused with moral certainty. Hence, the assigned errors cannot be
accorded acceptance.
The first assigned error has no legal and factual basis. The law does not require that the
testimony of a single witness must be corroborated except where expressly
mandated. 18 The weight and sufficiency of evidence is determined not by the number of
the witnesses presented but by the credibility, nature, and quality of the testimony. It is
settled that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient
for conviction. 19
Contrary to the accused's claim, we do not find the conduct of the victim to be "inconsistent
with human experience and behavior." What she did before, during, and after she was
raped was in accord with human experience and behavior. She resisted with all the
strength she could to prevent the rape, pleaded for mercy, and yielded to his lust only after
she was threatened with death. 20 Thereafter, she ran away, shouted for help, and, in the
house of Arsenio Arias, narrated the incident to Arias' wife. Later, she submitted herself to
an examination of her private parts by Dr. Umali and reported the incident to the police
authorities. After she again saw the accused the following day, she confided to her sisterin-law that he was the rapist and when they reached their house, she told her husband
about it. They immediately reported the matter to a policeman who then brought the
accused to the police station where she spontaneously pointed to him as the rapist. 21
There is nothing in the second assigned error which would discredit the testimony of the
victim. We find no substantial inaccuracy in her testimony describing the accused as
having a scar on his face and agree with the trial court that the inaccuracy is on a minor
point. It must be stressed that the victim did not personally know the accused.
Nevertheless, as stated above, there was spontaneity in her recognition of the accused as
her rapist. She did not, as well, hesitate to point to him as the rapist at the police station.
The accused admitted this fact when he testified in court. But he did not testify that he

EVIDENCE: DIGEST: ABO CASE

protested the accusation or that he immediately told the policeman present that the
accusation was false. That accusation, if untrue, naturally called for a denial. Then too, he
further testified on direct examination that he was confronted by the victim's husband,
Raymundo de Chavez, at the police station:
Q What was your conversation all about at the
police headquarters with Raymundo de Chavez?
A He told me that "ikaw pala, dinagdagan mo pa
ang galit ng aming pamilya." You have added anger
to my family.
Yet the accused did not immediately deny that he raped Raymundo's wife. He feebly
answered thus:

kumulang nuon, ay tandang-tanda ko and mukha

niya pati na ang katawan niyang medyo
maskulado. 24
Clearly, therefore, the victim's positive identification of the accused is beyond dispute. The
accused attempted to cast doubt thereon, through the testimonies of his witnesses,
Arsenio Arias, Raul Umali, and Ernesto Dimaculangan. Arias testified that the victim
described the rapist as "well-built, tall and dark," with "a round face, with a scar on the
face," and that when he asked her if the rapist was as big as Ernesto Dimaculangan who
was near, she answered that the rapist was bigger. Thereupon, defense counsel requested
the court that Ernesto and the accused be required to stand beside each other, which was
granted. Then the said counsel and the court made the following observations:
ATTY. CASCO:

A I asked him, what make [sic] him angry to me.

In height, accused Ladislao Abo is shorter than

Ernesto Dimaculangan and the body built of
Ladislao Abo is smaller than that of Ernesto
Dimaculangan.

Q What was the answer of Raymundo de Chavez?

COURT:

A He did not speak, ma'am. 22

The Court observes Dimaculangan is very slightly

taller but of broader shoulder. 25

Q And what did you say to Raymundo de Chavez?

This again, was an occasion that naturally called for an immediate denial from the accused
if indeed he was not the rapist. Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or
declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true,
and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in
evidence against him.
It was also established that in the afternoon of 14 May 1986, the victim was investigated by
Patrolman Felino Noguera of the Police Force of Tiaong, Quezon. The investigation was
reduced to writing in the form of a sworn statement. 23 Question No. 15 thereof and the
victim's answer thereto read as follows:
T: Ano ang mga palatandaang nakapagtibay sa iyo
na ito ngang si Ladislao Abo ang siyang gumahasa
sa iyo?
Sagot: Dahilan po sa kanyang kulay at hugis ng
mukha na may kaunting pilat sa kanang bahagi ng
mukha, malalim and kanyang baba na parang may
guhit, and kanyang boses ay kilalang-kilala ko at isa
pa dahil alas 3:00 lamang ng hapon, humigit-

Ernesto Dimaculangan was presented by the defense to corroborate the testimony of

Arsenio Arias that in the house of Arsenio Arias, the victim made a comparison between
him and the accused. 26
On rebuttal, the victim testified that she does not know Ernesto Dimaculangan and that she
was not able to talk to Arsenio Arias in his house after she was raped. 27
From the foregoing, it is clear that the alleged inconsistency made by the victim in
describing the accused was based not on what she testified to in court, but on what the
defense witnesses claimed was said by the victim after the incident. This involves the
credibility of the witnesses rather than the accuracy of her testimony as to the description.
The trial court was in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility of the witnesses,
having personally heard them when they testified and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying. It is doctrinally entrenched that the evaluation of the testimony of
witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect because it is the
trial court that has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and detect if they
are telling the truth or lying through their teeth. This assessment is binding upon the
appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily. 28 The trial
court gave full faith and credit to the victim's testimony and disregarded the claim of the
accused's witnesses. We find no cogent reason to disregard such assessment.

EVIDENCE: DIGEST: ABO CASE

Even granting that the victim described the accused to Arsenio Arias, the fact that the
accused has no scar and is shorter and smaller than Ernesto Dimaculangan does not
disprove her identification of the accused. A scar need not be permanent; an appearance
of one could even be made as a cover-up in order to confuse witnesses. The accused did
not testify that he never has a scar on his face. Also, if indeed she made a comparison
between the accused and Ernesto Dimaculangan and she did declare that the former is
taller than the latter, her imprecision is understandable since Ernesto is only "very slightly
taller" than the accused. As a matter of fact, the presiding Judge and the counsel for the
accused had differing observations on the height of the accused and Ernesto although they
were made to stand beside each other in court. In short, the inconsistency between what
she testified to in court and what she purportedly communicated to Arsenio Arias is on
matters which even educated persons under normal conditions and with greater
opportunity to make the observation might differ.
In any event, the scar and the height of the accused were not the victim's sole basis in
identifying the accused. No less than Patrolman Felino Noguera, whom the defense
presented as a witness, admitted that he saw the line on the chin of the accused which the
victim described to him. Thus:
ATTY. CASCO:

More than anything else, the accused, through his own witness, Ernesto Dimaculangan,
put to naught all his protestations and arguments against the identification made by the
victim. Said witness candidly admitted on cross-examination that the rapist who is the
accused brought him to court, thus:
Q Who asked you to testify in this case?
A None, sir, nobody asked me to testify in this case.
Q How did you come to know during the previous
hearing that this case is scheduled for hearing?
A The rapist went to our house and asked me to go
with him here, sir.
Q Who was that person?
A Ladislao Abo, sir.
Q And it was Ladislao Abo who shouldered your
expenses and means?

xxx xxx xxx

Q What can you say about his physical feature, as
you have observed?
xxx xxx xxx
WITNESS:

A We alternately paid for food and transportation,

sir. 30
In an attempt to repair the harm caused by this damaging admission, counsel for the
accused suggested on redirect examination a possible rectification, but, unfortunately, he
failed because Ernesto just laughed and made an unresponsive answer. Thus:

None, ma'am, As I have observed him, he is normal

and I was look [sic] for the scar or line on his face,
ma'am.

ATTY. CASCO:

ATTY. CASCO:

Q You said on cross examination that the person

who told you that there will be a hearing last time
was the rapist, what do you mean by that?

Q Did you find it?

A I cannot see any scar and the line was located as
described, on the chin, ma'am.

A few re-direct, your Honor.

FISCAL BUSTONERA:

ATTY. CASCO:

We will make it on record that the witness is

laughing and cannot answer the question
profounded [sic] by defense counsel, Your Honor.

May we manifest your Honor that the line on the

face, as pointed by the witness is a "cliff chin"
[sic]. 29

WITNESS:

EVIDENCE: DIGEST: ABO CASE

A I also spent for myself, madam. 31

The prosecution established beyond doubt that the person who attacked Adelia Velasco de
Chavez had carnal knowledge of her forcibly and against her will. Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code provides in part as follows:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by
having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
Adelia positively identified the accused as her rapist. The third and fourth assigned errors,
therefore, need not be discussed thoroughly. It may, however, be pointed out that the third
assigned error involves a question of credibility of the witnesses for the defense. It is, as
earlier discussed, an issue that is principally addressed to the trial court which had the
opportunity to observe their deportment, demeanor, and manner of testifying and whose
judgment thereon is entitled to the highest degree of respect.

As to the accused's alibi, we have ruled time and again that it is weak defense for it is easy
to concoct and fabricate; it cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive
identification of the accused. 32
The affirmance of the challenged decision is thus inevitable, except as to the indemnity
which should be increased from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00, considering that the victim is a
married woman with three children.
WHEREFORE, except as above modified with respect to the indemnity, the Decision of
Branch 58 of Regional Trial Court of Lucena City in Criminal Case No. 86-439 is a
AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the accused-appellant LADISLAO ABOR Y ALDAY in
this instance.
SO ORDERED.

EVIDENCE: DIGEST: ABO CASE