PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINADOR AVERO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Avero

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Dominador Avero, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused, a sixty-four-year-old man and the uncle of the victim, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Abra of raping his twelve-year-old niece and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify her. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the classic rules on credibility in rape prosecutions: the deference owed to the trial court's factual findings, the treatment of delay in reporting, the weight of alibi, and the evidentiary significance of flight. It is a compact illustration of how the Supreme Court reviews a rape conviction that rests almost entirely on the complainant's testimony.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court of Abra, Branch One, which tried the accused, convicted him of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the complainant in the amount of 30,000 pesos. The accused then interposed an appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging mainly the credibility of the complainant and the trial court's appreciation of the evidence. The appeal thus came directly to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the records and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Facts

On February 11, 1984, at about noon, Janet Avero, who was exactly twelve years, eight months, and three days old at the time, was on her way home from the river where she had washed clothes, in Barangay Bayaan, Dolores, Abra. The accused, Dominador Avero, suddenly appeared on the pathway, grabbed her around the waist, covered her mouth when she shouted, and brought her to a field planted with camotes. There he forcibly lowered her short pants and panty, removed his own long pants, and raped her. He was armed with a bolo, which he used to threaten her, and afterward he warned her not to report the matter to her father, lest he kill both of them.

Afraid of the death threat, Janet did not report the rape when she arrived home. Eight days later, on February 19, 1984, her father, Clarito Avero, asked her to fetch water, and she refused. Sensing that something was wrong, he went near her, saw that she was crying, and upon further questioning, Janet broke down and narrated how she had been raped. Two days later, on February 21, 1984, father and daughter went to the Philippine Constabulary camp at Bangued, Abra, reported the matter, and gave their statements, and Janet submitted herself for medical examination at the Abra Provincial Hospital.

Doctor Adela Vera Cruz examined Janet on February 21, 1984 and found a shallow, old laceration at twelve o'clock and old lacerations at three o'clock and nine o'clock on the hymen. The accused, a sixty-four-year-old man and the victim's uncle, denied the charge and claimed he was elsewhere. He testified that on the afternoon of February 10, 1984, Emiliano de Guzman, Junior, fetched him to visit a sick relative in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, and that on February 11, 1984, at about six o'clock in the morning, they left for Narvacan and arrived there at about eight-thirty. The records also showed that a warrant of arrest was issued on March 13, 1984, but the accused was arrested and committed to jail only on May 30, 1984, because he had apparently left the province of Abra after February 11, 1984.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the complainant, Janet Avero, despite the delay of eight days in reporting the rape.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi raised by the accused can overcome the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the accused's flight after the incident may be taken as evidence of his guilt.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies the settled jurisprudence on rape and on the appreciation of evidence. The governing rule on review of facts, as the Court states it, is that appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court, considering that it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. This rule is the lens through which the Court examined the complainant's credibility.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in believing the complainant. By the nature of the offense of rape, conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony, because usually only the participants can testify as to its occurrence. The trial court found Janet credible, observing that she was too young and too raw to fabricate a serious charge for rape against her own uncle, and the Supreme Court found no reason to depart from the established rule of deference to the trial court's factual findings.

On the delay in reporting, the Court held that it did not cast doubt on her veracity. Quoting its earlier ruling in People versus Oydoc, the Court said:

One should not expect a fourteen-year old girl to act like an adult or mature and experienced woman who would know what to do under such difficult circumstances and who would have the courage and intelligence to disregard a threat on her life and the members of her family and complain immediately that she had been forcibly deflowered. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for sometime the assaults on their virtue because of the rapist' threat on their lives.

Janet herself explained on the witness stand that she was afraid because the accused told her that if she reported the matter to her father, he would kill both of them. The Court added that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. And when a victim says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the rape has been committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the alibi as the weakest of defenses, especially where it lacks corroboration from competent witnesses, and held it worthless in the face of the explicit and positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.

On the third issue, the Court gave weight to the accused's flight. The warrant of arrest was issued on March 13, 1984, but he was arrested and committed to jail only on May 30, 1984, because he had apparently left the province of Abra after February 11, 1984. Flight of the accused signifies an awareness of guilt and a consciousness that he had no tenable defense to the rape charge.

Doctrine

First, appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court on credibility, because the trial court heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Second, delay in reporting a rape is not, by itself, a sign of fabrication; a young girl's silence may be explained by the rapist's threat on her life and that of her family. Third, when a victim says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on it alone. Fourth, alibi is the weakest of defenses, especially when uncorroborated, and cannot prevail against positive identification. Fifth, flight of the accused signifies an awareness of guilt and a consciousness that he had no tenable defense.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in full, with costs against the accused-appellant.

Remember This

Memorize the line that when a victim says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, and that if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. Examiners use this case for the rules on delayed reporting, the weakness of alibi against positive identification, and flight as evidence of a consciousness of guilt.