You are on page 1of 6

BLESSED GRACE

ANTHONETTE T. DULA,
Complainant-Appellant,
-versus-

NPS Docket No. XV-18DINV-12E-01724


For: Rape in relation to
R.A. No. 7610
Promulgated:

JESUS TALABA,
Respondent.
________________
x--------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION
This resolves the petition for review of the resolution of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Kaytikling, Taytay, Rizal in the
above-entitled case, dismissing the complaint for rape in
relation to Republic Act No. 7610, against respondent for lack
of probable cause.
Records show that complainant is 16 years old, a minor,
while respondent Jesus Talaba is complainants uncle.
Complainant claims that on May 21, 2012, at about 11:00
a.m., respondent fetched her at her friends house and
forced her to board his motorcycle. On their way home
respondent told her to remove her clothes so that he could
inspect her if she had sexual intercourse. She denied
respondents accusation and told the latter that she would
submit herself instead for medical examination. Respondent
refused and told her that he will see for himself since he was
knowledgeable about those things. Upon reaching their
house, she went to her room and was surprised when
respondent followed her inside the room. Respondent
forcibly removed her shorts and panties, and made her lie in
the bed. Respondent spread her legs and inserted his fingers
in her vagina. Respondent also pulled her blouse and bra
upwards and mashed her breasts. Respondent said its good

RESOLUTION - Dula vs. Talaba


NPS Docket No. XV-18D-INV-12E-01724

that she was still untouched. Respondent suddenly kissed


her on her lips, cheeks and face. She tried to break free from
respondent but the latter told her not to put malice in his
actions since he sees her as his daughter. Respondent lay on
the bed and made her lie down on top of him. She felt his
erect penis while respondent asked her to kiss him. Her
auntie suddenly knocked on the door and so respondent was
not able to rape her. On May 22, 2012, at about 1:00 p.m.,
respondent told her that he wanted to see her panties. She
told respondent there was no need since she did not have
sexual intercourse with anybody. Respondent insisted in
looking at her panties. He instructed her to take a bath and
go up to her room. Respondent then called her to his room
and made her lie down on the bed. He forcibly spread her
legs and inserted his fingers in her vagina. She struggled as
she felt pain. Respondent accused her of having engaged in
sexual intercourse and saying that she would not have felt
pain if she was still a virgin. She cried and respondent asked
her again if she was sure that she was still untouched. She
replied yes and respondent started kissing her lips and face.
She told respondent that she was going to take a bath and
left.
In his defense, respondent denies all the complainants
allegations against him. He claims the instant complaint is
filed against him in order to extort money from him. The
mother of complainant, Eva Dula, was asking for a
motorcycle from him. He also claims since he and his wife
were the ones taking care of the complainant, they have
treated complainant as their daughter. He could not have
sexually molested complainant because his wife was always
with him. It was also physically impossible for him to have
sexually molested complainant on May 21, 2012 since he
and his wife were in Batangas to inspect the land they
intended to buy thereat. They left at around 4:00 a.m. and
returned home at about 8:00 p.m. While on May 22, 2012, he
attended a pre-departure orientation seminar conducted by
the Magsaysay Maritime Corporation as required of seaman
by Philippine Overseas Filipino Workers. The seminar was a

RESOLUTION - Dula vs. Talaba


NPS Docket No. XV-18D-INV-12E-01724

whole day affair. He attached his certificate of attendance


and affidavits of Lucila V. Talaba and Nenita Lorenzo to
support his allegations.
Complainant filed a motion to admit supplemental affidavit
wherein she alleged that the true dates of the incidents were
May 23 and May 24, 2012. Attached therewith are the
affidavits of Maryrose Aromin and Juanito Vinta.
On September 18, 2012, the Provincial Prosecutor of
Kaytikling, Taytay, Rizal, issued a resolution dismissing the
instant complaint for lack of probable cause.
Hence, the petition.
When a woman says that she was raped, she in fact
tells it all. This proposition has evolved in our case law to
mean that a conviction for rape may be sustained on the
uncorroborated testimony of the complaining woman. Rape
is inherently a crime that is rarely committed in the presence
of witnesses, for which reason, the law recognizes that it is a
charge so easily made and so hard to be refuted. Thus, to
obviate the danger and impiety of falsehood, and to repel
any inference that the story may have been a mere
fabrication, every story of defloration must never be
received with precipitate credulity. (People vs. Ulpindo, G.R.
No. 115983, April 12, 1996)
The prosecution has the burden of proof to show beyond
reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was guilty of the
crime of rape. Evidence, to be believed, must not only
proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be
credible in itself. (People vs. Ulpindo, G.R. No. 115983, April
12, 1996)
Certainly, time is not an essential ingredient or element of
the crime of rape. However, it assumes importance in the
instant case since it creates serious doubt on the
commission of the rape or the sufficiency of the evidence for

RESOLUTION - Dula vs. Talaba


NPS Docket No. XV-18D-INV-12E-01724

purposes of conviction. (People vs. Ladrillo, G.R. No. 124342,


December 8, 1999)
In the initial complaint filed by complainant, the latter was
allegedly sexually assaulted by respondent on May 21 and
May 22, 2012. It appears however from the records that on
May 21, 2012, respondent was in Batangas together with his
wife and Nenita Lorenzo to inspect a property they intend to
buy. While on May 22, 2012, respondent attended a predeparture orientation seminar as evidenced by the latters
certificate of attendance. It was therefore impossible for
respondent to have sexually assaulted complainant on said
dates considering respondent was not even in his house
where the alleged sexual assaults took place. The materiality
of the date cannot therefore be cursorily ignored since the
accuracy and truthfulness of complainants narration of
events leading to the rape practically hinge on the date of
the commission of the crime. (People vs. Ladrillo, G.R. No.
124342, December 8, 1999)
Denial and alibi may be weak but courts should not at once
look at them with disfavor. There are situations where an
accused may really have no other defenses but denial and
alibi which, if established to be the truth, may tilt the scales
of justice in his favor, especially when the prosecution
evidence itself is weak. (People vs. Ladrillo, G.R. No. 124342,
December 8, 1999)
To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was
present at another place at the time of the perpetration of
the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to
be at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility "refers to
the distance between the place where the accused was
when the crime transpired and the place where it was
committed, as well as the facility of access between the two
places." (People vs. Dominguez, G.R. No. 191065, June 13,
2011)

RESOLUTION - Dula vs. Talaba


NPS Docket No. XV-18D-INV-12E-01724

As extensively discussed earlier, it was physically


impossible for respondent to commit the alleged sexual
assaults on the complainant because respondent was
nowhere near his house when the alleged sexual assaults
took place. It was physically impossible for respondent to be
at the scene of the crime since on May 21, 2012 respondent
was in Batangas while on May 22, 2012, respondent
attended a whole day seminar in Manila.
The credibility of complainant was further put into
serious doubt when the latter conveniently changed the
dates of the commission of the alleged sexual assaults in her
supplemental affidavit from May 21 and May 22, 2012 to
May 23 to May 24, 2012. We find it highly unlikely for
complainant to make a mistake in the dates of the
commission of the alleged sexual assaults considering her
sworn statement was taken on May 28, 2012, which was only
a few days after its alleged commission.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines.
For the Secretary of Justice:
JOSE VICENTE B. SALAZAR
Undersecretary
Copy furnished:
THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Kayikling, Taytay, Rizal 1920
MARY ROSE AROMIN
BLESSED GRACE ANTHONETTE T. DULA
Complainant-Appellant

RESOLUTION - Dula vs. Talaba


NPS Docket No. XV-18D-INV-12E-01724

No.97 Standford St.


Brgy. E. Rodriguez
Cubao, Quezon City 1109
MR. JESUS TALABA
Respondent
No. 313 Majestic St.,
Monte Vista Park Subd.
Brgy. Sto. Nino, Cainta, Rizal 1900

CAA/TMV/SBA*mmg-grace