People v. Batalla

 

People v. Batalla

G.R. No. 234323

January 7, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Jordan Batalla y Aquino of rape. AAA(14 years old), a US citizen who came to Tarlac, Philippines to acquaint with her family. Around 11pm in the evening of August 5, 2011, while she was sleeping, she was awaken by a loud knock on the door by her cousin Meco and continued to sleep. Thereafter, she was awaken again, this time by a weight pressing against her by Batalla, Meco’s friend. He pulled up her skirt and had sexual intercourse with her for 10 min. and threatened that he will kill her. After which he slept while AAA is suffering whole body pain. Thirty minutes had passed, he again raped her which caused her to black out. The next day she found blood stains on her bed and panty. The incident was reported only when her mother read her diary about saying that her virginity was lost through Batalla that on the same day Dr. Tangonan found an old hymen laceration at the 5 o’clock position. Batalla’s defense was that on August 5, 2011 he came home from work at around 5pm to help prepare for her mother’s, Hilda, birthday party and was corroborated by her and Ma. Clara Vincecruz in their testimonies that indeed Batalla was in the party attending to the guests until past midnight.

ISSUE:

                 Whether or not the CA erred in convicting Batalla.

HELD:

                No. First of all, the fact that AAA failed to shout for help and to immediately report the rape incident does not affect her case. Settled is the rule that delay in reporting the incident does not weaken AAA's testimony especially in view of the threats Batalla made to kill her. Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant. Second, it is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations asserted by Batalla does not negate the rape, and although medical results may not indicate physical abuse, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape. Thus, Batalla may still be convicted of the crime charged even in the absence of physical injuries sustained by AAA. Third, with respect to Batalla's defenses of denial and alibi, We have pronounced time and again that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident. In the case at hand, Batalla insists that he was at the birthday party of his mother which was held at their house, attending to the guests all night long. It bears stressing, however, that said house is only two (2) blocks away from the house where AAA was allegedly raped and can be traversed by foot in just five (5) minutes. Unfortunately for Batalla, therefore, he was clearly in the immediate vicinity of the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. As the RTC observed, moreover, the testimonies of his mother and a guest at the party cannot save his case for it is rather unbelievable for them to have kept an eye on him the entire night. Seeing him at one point in the party does not automatically mean that he was there from beginning until the end of the four (4) to five (5)-hour event. Thus, his defense of alibi must necessarily fail.