G.R. No. 238839.  February 27, 2019.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee,  vs.  ANTHONY MABALO  y  BACANI, accused-
appellant.

Criminal Law; Rape; In  People v. Pruna,  390  SCRA 577

(2002),  the Supreme Court (SC) laid down the guidelines in
determining the age of the victim.—Although the Information
alleged that AAA was 14 years old at the time of the incident, no
proof was presented to attest the truth of such statement.
In  People v. Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 (2002), this Court laid down
the guidelines in determining the age of the victim: 1. The best
evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or
certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2.
In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic
documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which
show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. 3.
If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to
have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a
member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the
exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient
under the following circumstances: a. If the victim is alleged to be
below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 7 years old; b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years
of age and what is sought to

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

 
 

464

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 People vs. Mabalo

be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim

is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 18 years old. 4. In the absence of a
certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of
the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age, the
complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly
and clearly admitted by the accused. 5. It is the prosecution that
has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The
failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence
regarding age shall not be taken against him. 6. The trial court
should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the
victim.
Same; Same; Guidelines in Reviewing Rape Cases.—In
reviewing rape cases, We are guided by the following well-
entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made
with facility: it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where 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.
Same; Same; Credibility of Witnesses; The determination of
the credibility of the offended party’s testimony is a most basic
consideration in every prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony
of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of
conviction.—The determination of the credibility of the offended
party’s testimony is a most basic consideration in every
prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if
credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction. As in
most rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. In
this regard, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses,
appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial
court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide
the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed
their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. The
exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation was reached
arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstance of weight and substance
which could affect the result of the case.

 
 

465
 VOL. 894, FEBRUARY 27, 2019 465
People vs. Mabalo

Same; Same; Denial; Alibi; Denial and alibi are viewed by the
Supreme Court (SC) with disfavor, considering these are
inherently weak defenses, especially in light of private
complainant’s positive and straightforward declarations
identifying accused-appellant as the one who committed the
bastardly act against her, as well as her straightforward and
convincing testimony detailing the circumstances and events
leading to the rape.—Appellant reiterates his defense of denial
and alibi. Denial and alibi are viewed by this Court with disfavor,
considering these are inherently weak defenses, especially in light
of private complainant’s positive and straightforward declarations
identifying accused-appellant as the one who committed the
bastardly act against her, as well as her straightforward and
convincing testimony detailing the circumstances and events
leading to the rape. Appellant offered nothing but denial and a
flimsy excuse that he was at a certain place when the incident
happened.
Same; Same; A victim of rape would not come out in the open
if her motive were anything other than to obtain justice.—It must
be remembered that, when a woman says that she has been
raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to show that she
has indeed been raped. A victim of rape would not come out in the
open if her motive were anything other than to obtain justice. Her
testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has
absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the
accused.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
    Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

 
PERALTA,  J.:
 
This is an appeal of the Decision1 dated January 26,
2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Judgment2
dated 5,

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza (now Presiding Justice),

with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Victoria
Isabel A. Paredes; Rollo, pp. 2-15.
  
 

466

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mabalo

2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), x  x  x Branch 9,

City of x x x in Criminal Case No. 08-262219, which found
Anthony Mabalo  y  Bacani guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Simple Rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8353.
The facts follow.
Private complainant, AAA3  was allegedly 14 years old
when the incident and lived with her family at a two-storey
house located at x x x, in the City of x x x. The house had
three (3) rooms on the first floor which were occupied by
AAA, her parents, appellant and his wife, and another
boarder. AAA stayed in one of the two rooms on the second
floor.
Around 12:30 a.m. of June 24, 2008, appellant arrived at
the house and went to his room. Meanwhile, AAA was
alone in the living room watching television. At that time,
appellant’s wife left the former two days earlier after they
quarreled. At 2:30 a.m., AAA noticed appellant coming out
of his room and was surprised when appellant suddenly
approached her and held her right thigh with his left hand.
Appellant 

_______________

2 Penned by Presiding Judge Jacqueline S. Martin-Balictar; CA Rollo,

pp. 56-62.
3  Pursuant to R.A. No. 7610, “An Act Providing for Stronger
Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination, and for Other Purposes”; R.A. No. 9262, “An Act Defining
Violence against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective
Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other
Purposes”; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the “Rule on
Violence against Women and Their Children,” effective November 15,
2004; and People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703; 502 SCRA 419 (2006), the
real name of the rape victim is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are
used to represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or
any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as
well as those of her immediate family or household members, is disclosed
(People v. CCC, G.R. No. 220492, July 11, 2018, 871 SCRA 590).
  
 
467

VOL. 894, FEBRUARY 27, 2019 467

People vs. Mabalo

proceeded to push AAA on the floor on a lying position and

covered her mouth with his left hand, while using his right
hand to pull down his pants and underwear. After
appellant was able to expose his penis, he lifted his hips,
opened her legs and inserted his manhood into her vagina.
AAA felt pain in her abdomen, while appellant made two
(2) pumping motions before he ejaculated. AAA attempted
to struggle against appellant but her asthma made her
weak. Thereafter, appellant explicitly told AAA not to tell
anyone about what happened between them.
A few hours after the incident, AAA told her mother
while she was visiting the latter’s workplace about what
happened between her and appellant. Afterwards, AAA
and her mother went to the x  x  x Police Station and
executed a sworn statement. AAA was then given a general
physical examination and an anogenital examination at the
Philippine General Hospital. The Final Medico-legal Report
yielded the following findings: “anogenital findings are
diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma.”
On the same date, around 1:00 p.m., appellant was
arrested.
Hence, an Information was filed against appellant for
the crime of Rape, in relation to R.A. No. 7610 which reads
as follows:

That on or about June 24, 2008, in the City of x  x  x,

Philippines, the said accused, did then and there[,] willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force, violence and
intimidation have (sic) carnal knowledge with said AAA, a
minor, 14 years old, to wit: by then and there touching her
thigh, forcibly holding her hands with his left arm, covering
her mouth using his left hand, using his right hand on (sic)
removing her short (sic) and pant (sic), kissing her neck,
inserting his penis to the vagina of said AAA, succeeding in
having carnal knowledge with her, against her will and
consent, thereby gravely endangering her normal growth
and development and to the damage and prejudice of said
AAA.

 
  
468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mabalo

Contrary to law.4

 
During his arraignment, appellant, without the
assistance of a counsel and after manifesting his
willingness and readiness to be arraigned, entered a plea of
not guilty.
After pretrial, the trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA,
SPO1 Solomon Santos, SPO1 Napoleon Reyes, and Dr.
Merle Tan.
Appellant, on the other hand, denied raping AAA. In his
testimony, he claimed that at 3:00 a.m. of June 24, 2008, he
was along x  x  x selling breakfast meals, soap, bread, and
coffee. According to him, while he was working, he was in
the company of his relatives. He was shocked to learn that
he was being accused of raping AAA and could not think of
any reason why he was implicated in the said crime. He
only learned of such accusation when he was invited to
the  barangay  hall where he was confronted by AAA’s
mother.
On September 5, 2016, the RTC rendered its judgment
finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged against him. The dispositive portion of the
RTC’s decision reads, as follows:

WHEREFORE, accused ANTHONY

MABALO  y  BACANI is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of RAPE under Article 266-A, paragraph
1(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act
No. 7610. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and is ORDERED to pay the
victim (75,000.00) as civil indemnity, (75,000.00) as moral
damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus
interest of 6%  per annum  on the amount of damages,
reckoned from the finality of this decision until full
payment.
SO ORDERED.5

_______________
 4 Records, p. 1.
5 CA Rollo, p. 62.

 
 
469

VOL. 894, FEBRUARY 27, 2019 469

People vs. Mabalo

Appellant elevated the case to the CA, and on January

26, 2018, the appellate court dismissed appellant’s appeal
and found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Simple Rape, in a decision which has the following
as its dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Judgment

dated 5 September 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, x x x in
Crim. Case No. 08-262219 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.6

 
The CA ruled that, even though the prosecution failed to
prove that AAA was a minor at the time the incident took
place, appellant may still be convicted of simple rape as all
the elements of the said crime have been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Thus, appellant comes to this Court for the resolution of
his appeal.
According to appellant, the trial court erred in relying on
AAA’s testimony because it is not credible. Appellant also
argues that he did not employ force, intimidation or
violence upon AAA. Another contention raised by appellant
is that the sexual organ of AAA was found negative for
spermatozoa. Lastly, appellant claims that the prosecution
failed to establish AAA’s minority.
The appeal has no merit.
In this case, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape in relation to R.A.
No. 7610. On appeal, the CA found him guilty of Simple
Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. This
Court, in  People v. Joel Jaime,7  expounded on the
difference between

_______________

6 Id., at p. 106.
 7 G.R. No. 225332, July 23, 2018, 873 SCRA 151.

 
 
470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mabalo

simple rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1(a) of the RPC and that
of the provisions of R.A. 7610, thus:

Under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal

Code, the crime of rape is committed when a man shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances: (a) through force, threat, or intimidation; (b)
when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; and (d) when the offended party is
under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances previously mentioned are
present. It is penalized with reclusion perpetua as provided
under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 8353.
On the other hand, Section 5(b), Article III of Republic
Act No. 7610 provides:
Section  5.  Child Prostitution and Other Sexual
Abuse.—Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct,
are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution
and other sexual abuse.
x x x x
(b)  Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under
twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape
and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct as
the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve
(12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its
medium period; and

 
  
471

VOL. 894, FEBRUARY 27, 2019 471

People vs. Mabalo

x x x x
The essential elements of Section 5(b) are: (a) the
accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct; (b) the said act is performed with a child exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and, (c)
the child whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
The imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua, except that the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium
period.
In People v. Abay,8 the RTC found the accused “guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of committing the crime of rape
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to
Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610” and imposed upon
him the death penalty; although, on appeal, the CA found
the accused guilty only of simple rape and reduced the
penalty imposed to reclusion perpetua. The Court instructs
that if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be
charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610, or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph
1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code; but, he cannot be accused of
both crimes. Otherwise, his right against double jeopardy
will be prejudiced. Neither can these two (2) crimes be
complexed. The Court’s disquisition in the Abay case reads:
 
Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in
relation to RA 8353, of the victim of sexual abuse is
below 12 years of age, the offender should not be
prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape
under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the revised Penal Code
and penalized with  reclusion perpetua. On the other
hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender
should be charged with either sexual abuse under
Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A
(except paragraph 1[d]) of

_______________

8 599 Phil. 390, 394-396; 580 SCRA 235, 237-238 (2009).

  
 
472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mabalo

the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot

be accused of both crimes for the same act because his
right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A
person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability
for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be
complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code on
complex crimes, a felony under the Revised Penal
Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an
offense by a special law.

 
Although the Information alleged that AAA was 14
years old at the time of the incident, no proof was
presented to attest the truth of such statement. In People v.
Pruna,9 this Court laid down the guidelines in determining
the age of the victim:

1.  The best evidence to prove the age of the offended

party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of
live birth of such party.
2.  In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and
school records which show the date of birth of the victim
would suffice to prove age.
3.  If the certificate of live birth or authentic document
is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the
victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity
or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters
respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of
the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the
Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following
circumstances:
 
a.  If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of
age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 7 years old;

_______________
 9 439 Phil. 440, 470-471; 390 SCRA 577, 604 (2002), cited in People v.
Ausa, 792 Phil. 437, 444-445; 799 SCRA 442, 448-449 (2016).

 
 

473

VOL. 894, FEBRUARY 27, 2019 473

People vs. Mabalo

b.  If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of

age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 12 years old;
c.  If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of
age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 18 years old.
4.  In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic
document, or the testimony of the victim’s mother or
relatives concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s
testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused.
5.  It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving
the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to
object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be
taken against him.
6.  The trial court should always make a categorical
finding as to the age of the victim.

 
Without the Certificate of Live Birth and other means
by which AAA’s age as alleged in the Information could
have been ascertained beyond doubt, this Court is
constrained to agree with the CA and deem the crime
committed as Simple Rape.
In reviewing rape cases, We are guided by the following
well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can
be made with facility: it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to
disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
rape where 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.10
The determination of the credibility of the offended
party’s testimony is a most basic consideration in every
prosecution

_______________

10 People v. Padilla, 617 Phil. 170, 182-183; 601 SCRA 385, 399 (2009);
People v. Ramos, 577 Phil. 197, 304; 554 SCRA 423, 430 (2008).

 
 
474

474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mabalo

for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is

sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction.11 As in most
rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. In
this regard, when the issue is one of credibility of
witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the
findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a
better position to decide the question as it heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during trial.12 The exceptions to the
rule are when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or
when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstance of weight and
substance which could affect the result of the case.13 Here,
AAA related her painful ordeal in a clear and unwavering
manner, thus:
FISCAL MAGAYANES
Q You said you were rape[d]. How were you rape[d]?
A He held my right thigh using his left hand and then push[ed] me to
[lie] on the floor, he covered my mouth with his left hand, Ma’am.
Q And then when covering your mouth[,] what happened to the other
palm of the accused?
A He uses his right hand to pull down my pants, Ma’am.
Q By the way, what [were] you wearing at the time?
A Jogging pants and sleeveless shirt, Ma’am.
Q [Were] you wearing a panty?
A Yes, Ma’am.
x x x x

_______________

11 People v. Peralta, 619 Phil. 268, 273; 604 SCRA 285, 289 (2009).
12 Remiendo v. People, 618 Phil. 273, 287; 603 SCRA 274, 287 (2009).
 13 People v. Panganiban, 412 Phil. 98, 107; 359 SCRA 509, 519 (2001).

 
 
475

VOL. 894, FEBRUARY 27, 2019 475

People vs. Mabalo

Q After pulling down your panty[,] what else happened?

A He unzipped his short pants and brought out his penis, Ma’am.
Q Which part of his arm did he [use] to bring out his penis?
A His right hand, Ma’am.
Q After that[,] when the accused brought out his penis[,] what else
happened?
A He lifted his hips, open[ed] my legs and inserted his penis, Ma’am.
Q Where did he [insert] his penis?
A On my private part, Ma’am.
Q How did you know that his penis was already inserted in your private
part?
A There was as if something was broken and my abdomen hurts,
Ma’am.
Q When he inserted his penis into your private part, did the accused do
any motion?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q How can you [describe] that motion?
A There was a pumping motion, Ma’am.
Q Do you recall how many times did he make the pumping motion?
A Two (2) times, Ma’am.
Q After that pumping motion[,] what else happened?
A I felt something [come] off from him, Ma’am.
Q Was this something that came off from him some sort of a liquid?
A Yes, Ma’am.
x x x x
Q After you felt that there [was] liquid coming from the accused, what
else happened?

 
 
476

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mabalo

A Before he stood up, he still [covered] my mouth [with] his hand and
put back his penis inside [his] short[s], Ma’am.
 Q Did he not [utter] any word while raping you?
A No, Ma’am.
Q After he zipped his short pants[,] what happened to you?
A I pulled up my panty and jogging pants and the accused went inside
his room.
Q Did he not say anything?
A He told me not to tell anybody, Ma’am.14

 
In addition, such positive identification of the appellant
as the one who raped her is corroborated by the result of
the medico-legal examination conducted on her. As aptly
ruled by the CA:

Whereas a single and consistent testimony of the victim

would suffice to sustain a conviction, it is worthy to note
that the prosecution was able to further buttress the
testimony of AAA by presenting the testimony of both
officers, SPO1 Santos and SPO1 Reyes, who both attested to
the arrest of Accused-Appellant. Of similar import is the
presentation of Dr. Tan’s medico-legal report which appear
to affirm AAA’s version of the story. Such findings reveal
the impression that is “diagnostic of blunt force or
penetrating trauma,” which, according to Dr. Tan, are
bruises that may be caused by hard or blunt objects, such as
a penis. While it is a shopworn rule that medical finding is
not an element of rape and cannot establish the one
responsible for the same, jurisprudence dictates that it is
corroborative of the testimony of the rape victim that she
has been raped.15

_______________

14 TSN, August 24, 2010, pp. 7-12.

15 Rollo, p. 12. (Citations omitted)

 
 
477

VOL. 894, FEBRUARY 27, 2019 477

People vs. Mabalo

Appellant reiterates his defense of denial and alibi.

Denial and alibi are viewed by this Court with disfavor,16
considering these are inherently weak defenses,17
especially in light of private complainant’s positive and
straightforward declarations identifying accused-
appellant18 as the one who committed the bastardly act
against her, as well as her straightforward and convincing
testimony detailing the circumstances and events leading
to the rape.19 Appellant offered nothing but denial and a
flimsy excuse that he was at a certain place when the
incident happened. As correctly observed by the CA:

Aside from the fact that he miserably failed to present

the testimony of any of his relatives who he claims to be
with him at the time of the incident and could attest to his
whereabouts, Accused-Appellant was unable to prove that it
was physically impossible for him to be at the place of the
crime or at its immediate vicinity; militating against his
defense. Accused­-Appellant himself testified that x  x  x,
where he claims to have been, and the residence of AAA, is
but a mere walking distance away. Consequently, Accused-
Appellant cannot insist that his denial should not have been
completely disregarded due to the blatant lack of
substantiating evidence, other than his own concocted
story.20

 
Again, it must be remembered that, when a woman says
that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is
necessary to show that she has indeed been raped.21  A
victim of rape would not come out in the open if her motive
were any-

_______________

16  People v. Malana, 646 Phil. 290, 308; 631 SCRA 676, 692 (2010),
citing People v. Peralta, supra note 11 at p. 274; p. 290.
17 People v. Estrada, 624 Phil. 211, 217; 610 SCRA 222, 232-233 (2010).
18 People v. Paculba, 628 Phil. 662,672-673; 614 SCRA 755, 769 (2010);
People v. Achas, 612 Phil. 652, 666; 595 SCRA 341, 353 (2009).
19 Id.
20 Rollo, p. 13. (Citation omitted)
21 People v. Paculba, supra at p. 676; pp. 763-764.

 
 

478

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mabalo
 thing other than to obtain justice. Her testimony as to who
abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive
to incriminate and testify against the accused.22
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Anthony Mabalo y Bacani
is  DISMISSED  for lack of merit. Consequently, the
Decision dated January 26, 2018 of the Court of Appeals,
finding the same appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Simple Rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando and Carandang,** JJ.,

concur.

Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed.

Note.—Time and again, the Supreme Court (SC) held

that testimonies of rape victims who are young and
immature deserve full credence, considering that no young
woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and
thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial,
if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain
justice for the wrong committed against her. (People vs.
Primavera, 830 SCRA 380 [2017])

 
——o0o——

_______________

22 People v. Ugos, 586 Phil. 765, 774; 565 SCRA 207, 216 (2008); People
v. Miñon, 477 Phil. 790, 804-805; 433 SCRA 671, 681 (2004).
**  Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2624 dated
November 28, 2018.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.