1401

People v. AbalaGR 135858July 23, 2002

FACTS:Antonio Abala was charged before the RTC of Laguba with rape in 4 informations. Private complainant, Lea Abala is his 13-year old niece. During trial, the accused pleaded not guilty. The accused is the brother of the victims mom. The victim recalled that one night the accused entered her room and woke her up, covered her mouth with his left hand and poked a knife at her.He dragged her out of the house and brought her to his house.She went with him because she feared he would maul her just like what he used to do to his children. When he removed her clothes, she fought back by kicking and striking him with her hands, subsequently mounting her and had sexual intercourse with her. The next incident occurred the following week, with the same procedure. The private complainant kept silent about the 2 rape incidents because the accused threatened he would kill her mother. Upon the 3rd commission of rape, the 17-year old son of the accused, Meliton Abala, saw her in the house of the accused. After the 4th rape, the mother of the victim confronted the private complainant with the report she got from Meliton, after confirmation her mother helped in lodging the 4 informations for the crime of rape. The defense stated that the accused never saw the victim for the whole month where the days fall, for the alleged commission of the crime, but despite this, the trial court still found Abala guilty, hence this petition.

ISSUES:1. Whether or not the lower court erred in considering Lea Abala as a credible witness.

HELD:1. No.The appellant argued that he could not have dragged the victim out of her aunts house 4 times without being noticed by its occupants.He was raising the possibility that the victim could have easily shouted to call for help, and that he could not have brought her to his house for his children were living with him. Also, he states that he could have been easily identified. The Court rejects the argument of the appellant for the private complainants accounts of the rape incidents were straightforward, clear and concise, indicating that she was telling the truth when she testified in court.The Court adopted the finding of the trial court, stating that there was no alleged reason why the victim, a young and unmarried girl, would expose herself to embarrassment to allege the happening of the rape and submit to a private examination of her private parts. The Court added that there was nothing unusual with the fact that the appellant followed the same method in molesting the private complainant. Also, the possibility that the victim could have shouted for help does not make her less credible as a witness, since she was threatened, the accused having a knife with him. The accused also questions the fact that the victim was not able to state the exact dates, but the Court stated that in rape cases, the exact dates are not material elements of the offense.Nor can the appellant claim that he was prejudiced by the testimony of the private complainant. His only defense is a general denial that he never encountered the private complainant in the whole month of May 1997.His counsel was able to cross-examin the private complainant on the dates she was abused by the appellant.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio