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 passive. 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 remembered 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 defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the
defendants guilt is shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence continues.
1
Phoebe Hidalgo, 2003-37581