People+v+alvario 371c3s

PEOPLE v ALVARIO (Romero, 1997)1 FACTS:  Esterlina Quintero, a 29 year old single mother took time off her current job as housekeeper in Makati to look for another place of employment. With the help of Aling Soling she was introduced to accused Alvario. She thereafter agreed to cook for him and do his laundry for P800.00 /month. She was told that she could begin that very day thus she was taken to a two story house in Bel Air, where the only other occupant was Alma Barliso, another maid.  Armand Alvario on the other hand is a mere caretaker of the house owned by Atty. Rogelio San Luis.  According to Esterlina on the first day of work she was not allowed to eat and on the following day she was merely allowed to eat two spoonfuls of left-over food. Alvario would leave the house at 7 am and return at 5pm, directing Esterlina not to go out of the house nor to talk to Alma. Esterlina relates that evry night, Alvario would come into her room and force himself upon her. Out of fear because he had a gun and threatened to file a case against her, Esterlina did not resist nor defend herself. This happened for all the days she was under the employ of Alvario, she did not make a phone call to her sister because she was afraid and she did not try to escape because Alvario locked all the doors and the gate. After 7 days, finally mustering enough courage she rang her sister, who manage d to held her sister through her employer. Alvario was thereafter arrested (without warrant) and was later found guilty by the court. The court did not give credence to his “sweetheart” defense theory.  This case was an appeal by Alvario on the conviction against him COURT: 1. The court reverses the conviction against Alvario, stating that while the defense is not persuasive enough, the prosecution is even less convincing in proving the guilt of Alvario beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The court holds that the prosecution did not successfully prove the presence of force and intimidation as contemplated in Art 335 of RPC. The only evidence presented were the testimonies of the victim, her sister and one of the arresting officers. None of the testimonies of Merlyn Quintero and SPO3 Ricardo Reyes relate to the actual sexual assaults as narrated by Esterlina. The medical report does not prove the charge of rape but rather bolsters the claim of the defense (consensual sex).

3. Moreover, the court took notice why Alma was not presented as a witness and the fact that the house was not located in an isolated place and her seeming indifference to her predicament and her failure to defend herself and remain ive. The court cites: People v. Sinatao: “. . . (A) ravished woman would instinctively call for help or at best flee from her lecherous captor to safer grounds when opportunities present themselves.” 4. The court further states that the “It must, however, be ed that the existence of a presumption indicating guilt does not in itself destroy the presumption against innocence unless the inculpating presumption, together with all of the evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence by proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the defendant’s guilt is shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence continues.” 1

Phoebe Hidalgo, 2003-37581