COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY COULD BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE

CONVICTION OF RAPE

ALIBI CAN PROSPER AS DEFENSE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

People v. Lagarde
G.R. No. 182549; January 20, 2009
VELASCO, JR., J.

FACTS:

In this appeal, accused-appellant, Sergio Lagarde, seeks to reverse the Decision of the
CA affirming the judgment of conviction for rape handed down by the RTC.

On December 27, 2001, around 12 noon, AAA, 11 years old, and her mother were at the
house of one Lolita Lagarde-Sarsosa to attend an occasion wherein the accused-
appellant was also there. After lunch, AAA’s mother, Lagarde and the other visitors had
a drinking spree. At around 4:00 p.m., AAA went outside towards the jackfruit tree to pick
its fruit as ordered by her mother. However, she was not able to pick the said fruit because
Lagarde was behind her who suddenly placed his hand over her mouth and dragged her
to the copra dryer where he allegedly raped AAA. After the sexual assault, AAA told her
mother and underwent a physical examination which positively showed that the victim
had a sexual intercourse.

During the trial, Lagarde posed an alibi that he never left the house of Sarsosa from 12
noon to 9:00 p.m. and said that there was no copra dryer near the house of Sarsosa.
Sarsosa also testified but her testimony was disregarded by the RTC. Thus, the RTC
convicted Lagarde and imposed death as penalty. The CA upheld the trial court’s findings
and judgment of conviction but change the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE:

1.) Can the conviction of rape be solely based on the complainant’s testimony?

2.) Can an alibi prosper as a defense in a criminal prosecution?

HELD:

1.) Yes, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature
and the normal course of things.

In rape cases, courts are governed by the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape
can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused,
though innocent, to disprove; (2) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which 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. Due to the nature of this crime, only the complainant can testify against the
assailant.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that AAA was ably identified accused-appellant
as her attacker and described in detail how she was sexually assaulted. There is no
reason a child would fabricate such a serious accusation such as rape and risk public
humiliation if not to seek justice. Furthermore, the victim’s credibility is further bolstered
by the immediate reporting of the incident to her mother and subsequently to the
authorities. Moreover, the medical findings of the medical examiners established the fact
that complainant had sexual intercourse.

Hence, AAA’s testimony could be the sole basis for the conviction for rape of the accused-
appellant.

2.) Yes, provided that the accused persons must establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, their presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense
and the physical impossibility of their presence at the scene of the crime. It should also
be supported by the most convincing evidence since it is an inherently weak defense
which can easily be fabricated.

In the present case, Lagarde’s only defense witness, his relative, Sarsosa, cannot
consistently and convincingly assert that accused-appellant stayed in one place the whole
afternoon. Sarsosa herself was busy entertaining other visitors while accused-appellant
was outside the house. It could only be surmised that she only concocted her testimony
in favor of her nephew which was the accused-appellant.

Therefore, Lagarde’s alibi as defense cannot prosper.