Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v . JERRY CANTUBA y DEBLOIS 392 SCRA 76, 18 November 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v . JERRY CANTUBA y DEBLOIS 392 SCRA 76, 18 November 2002

When the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, the Court should reject the alibi offered by the accused. Accused-appellant Jerry Cantuba (Cantuba) was charged with rape by Private Complainant AAA. The rape allegedly took place in the house of Rosemarie, Cantuba‘s sister. Cantuba interposed alibi as defense alleging that he was mistaken for another named Jerry Teves. He further claimed that at the time of the commission of the crime, he helped Avelino Magno (Magno) make hollow blocks and plaster walls and thereafter proceeded to the house of a certain Zaldy Salas‘ (Salas). The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) found Cantuba guilty of rape and sentenced him to death.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Accused-Appellant Cantuba is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

Evidence establish beyond reasonable doubt that AAA was raped. There is no proof that the house where the offense was committed was indeed swarming with people at the time of its commission. In any case, the Court has held that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby or the members of the family; that lust does not respect time or place; and that rape is not only committed in seclusion. The trial court thus correctly rejected not only Cantuba‘s theory of mistaken identity but his alibi as well. Cantuba claimed that he proceeded to the house of Zaldy where he watched television while Magno left for home, whereas Magno claimed that the two of them proceeded to Zaldy‘s house and both watched television. The attempt of the accused to foist doubt into the mind of the court by suggesting that it might be the other Jerry (Teves/Obregon) who did it, proved insensible as the little girl stuck to her earlier declaration pointing to Jerry Cantuba as the perpetrator of the rape. And the court believed her. The court gives her narration full faith and credence and rejects the alibi offered by the accused.