G.R. No. L-76483 August 30, 1988
People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Avero

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Dominador Avero, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Abra for the rape of his niece, Janet Avero, who was exactly 12 years, 8 months, and 3 days old at the time of the incident. The prosecution evidence established that on February 11, 1984, in Barangay Bayaan, Dolores, Abra, Avero suddenly appeared before Janet on a pathway, grabbed her, covered her mouth, and brought her to a camote field. There, he forcibly lowered her pants and panty, removed his own clothing, and had carnal knowledge of her while armed with a bolo, which he used to threaten her. After the act, he warned her not to report the incident lest he kill her and her father. Janet, out of fear, only disclosed the rape to her father eight days later, after which they reported to the PC and she underwent a medical examination.
The medical examination conducted on February 21, 1984, revealed old lacerations on the victim’s hymen. The accused, a 64-year-old man, interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, visiting a sick relative on the date of the crime. He also challenged Janet’s credibility, particularly highlighting her delayed reporting of the incident.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape based on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, as usually only the participants can testify to its occurrence. The trial court found the testimony of the young complainant credible, noting she was too young and raw to fabricate a serious charge against her own uncle. Appellate courts generally will not disturb such factual findings, as the trial judge is in the best position to observe witness demeanor.
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the eight-day delay in reporting the incident undermined Janet’s credibility. It cited precedent that one cannot expect a young girl to act like an adult with the courage to immediately complain, especially under a threat to her life and her father’s. Janet’s fear was explicitly testified to and was a natural reaction. The Court reiterated the doctrine that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit being ravished unless it were the truth, and when her testimony is credible, it suffices for conviction.
The defense of alibi was correctly dismissed by the trial court as inherently weak, especially since it was uncorroborated and stood against the positive identification by the prosecution witness. The Court also noted the appellant’s flight after the incident, which indicated consciousness of guilt. Therefore, finding no reversible error, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto.