PEOPLE v.

BARO
June 5, 2002 | Panganiban, J. | Introduction and Admissibility of
Evidence Alibi
Digester: Tan, Raya Grace
SUMMARY: Baro was charged with 3 counts of rape by Roda. He
pleaded not guilty and interposed the alibi that he was in Catubig,
Northern Samar when the alleged rapes were committed. Based
solely on the complainants testimony, RTC convicted him of 3
counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each
count. SC reversed the RTC decision and acquitted Baro. It held
that complainants testimony was not credible, unable to prove
accuseds guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accuseds defense of
alibi is valid.
DOCTRINE: An alibi is the plea of having been somewhere other
than at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. To
prosper, it must be demonstrated that the person charged with the
crime was not only somewhere else when the offense was
committed, but was so far away that it would have been physically
impossible to have been at the place of the crime or its immediate
vicinity at the time of its commission.
FACTS:
December 17, 1997 Roda Ongotan filed a complaint for 3
counts of rape against Ernie Baro.
It was alleged that he raped her on January 5, 1995, March 5,
1995 and April 16, 1996, in her bedroom (2 armslength wide
and 1 armslength long). Roda, along with her parents, 8
other siblings and 1 uncle occupied the 2nd floor of the house.
Complainant described each rape as follows: the appellant
enters her room, covers her mouth with a handkerchief,
threatens to kill her if she shouted, pulls down her underwear,
pokes a balisong at her, and inserts his penis into her vagina
and she couldnt remember how long the appellants penis was
inside her.
Medico-legal officer Dr. Freyra found lacerations in Rodas
hymen, opined that these lacerations could have been caused
by any hard blunt object like an erect male organ.
Accused-appellant Baro pleaded not guilty to all three charges.
His alibi: he was engaged in copra farming in Catubig,
Northern Samar prior to November 15, 1996, when he came to
Manila with his wife and 3 kids to find work upon the request
and invitation of his niece (Rodas mom). They stayed at

Montessori, Manila before transferring to the house of his

niece where they stayed for about 1yr.
RTC: Baro guilty of 3 counts of rape; reclusion perpetua for
each count. Medico-legal report and testimony of Dr. Freyra
bolstered Rodas claim that she had experienced violent sexual
intercourse at a young age. Accuseds alibi and denial cannot
prevail over the positive testimony and identification of
complainant.

RULING: Appeal granted. The guilt of the appellant was not

proven beyond reasonable doubt. RTC decision REVERSED and
appellant ACQUITTED.
WoN the complainants testimony is credible NO.
While it is true that the complainants testimony may be the
sole basis for convicting the accused in a rape case, the
complaining witness testimony must be credible.
In reviewing rape cases, this Court has always been guided by
the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made
with facility while it may be difficult for the prosecution to
prove, it is usually more difficult for the person accused,
though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature
of the crime in which only two persons are usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits it cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
A review of the records of the case creates reasonable doubt as
to accuseds guilt because of: (1) delay in filing the complaint,
(2) failure of the prosecution to prove accuseds moral
ascendancy over complainant, (3) lack of support from the
records for the RTCs finding of violent sexual intercourse, and
(4) discrepancies in the complainants testimony.
o (1) The complaint was filed more than 2 years after the first
rape and more than a year after the third one allegedly
occurred. Her explanation for the delay was the threat of
the appellant to kill her, but she reported the incident while
he was still residing with her family because she no longer
wanted to ruin her life.
o (2) He was not much older than her brothers. It was not
shown whether he was her benefactor or whether he
exercised discipline over her. Presumptions of moral
ascendancy cannot and should not prevail over the
constitutional presumption of innocence.

o
o

(3) The report merely indicated healed lacerations were

found. They were not proven to have been caused by the
alleged rapes.
(4) She reported the second rape first and even asked what
he wanted from her. Considering the cramped space and
quietness of the night, the faintest cry from her would have
been heard by one or more of her family members. Each
rape was described in a very uniform and even seemingly
systematic manner which raises the suspicion that her
testimony had been coached, rehearsed or contrived.

WoN the accuseds alibi is a plausible excuse YES.

On each of the dates of the alleged rapes, Baro stated that he
was in Catubig, Northern Samar. It would take 24 hours for a
bus to travel from Catubig to Manila. It would be highly
unlikely for him to take the 24-hr bus ride to Manila, commit
the act and then return by Catubig by taking another 24-hr bus
ride. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove
that appellant was indeed in Manila when the alleged rapes
were committed (no testimony from mom/siblings).
An alibi is the plea of having been somewhere other than at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Contrary to
the common notion, alibi is not always a weak defense. But to

be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge,

the defense of alibi must be so airtight that it would admit of
no exception.
In order for it to prosper, it must be demonstrated that the
person charged with the crime was not only somewhere else
when the offense was committed, but was so far away that it
would have been physically impossible to have been at the
place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission. The reason is that no person can be in two places
at the same time.

WoN the accuseds guilt was proved beyond reasonable

doubt NO.
If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two
or more explanations, one of which is consistent with
innocence and the other with guilt, then the evidence does not
pass the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support
a conviction. In order to convict the accused of a crime, the
prosecution must produce evidence showing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
The innocence of a defendant in a criminal case is always
presumed until the contrary is proven.