G.R No.

171348 November 26, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. LARRY ERGUIZA, accused-appellant.

Facts:
Appellant Larry Erguiza was charged guilty of one count of rape and was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua by the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Pangasinan.
The prosecution’s version is that on January 5, 2000, around 4:00pm, AAA, a 13 year old, together
with her friends, siblings Joy and Ricky Agbuya, went to a mango orchard. On their way home, AAA’s
short pants got hooked on the fence while Joy and Ricky Ran away and left her. While AAA was trying to
unhook her short pants, Larry, armed with a kitchen knife, grabbed and did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA against her will and consent. The victim got
pregnant and upon discovery, she was compelled to tell the story to her parents. CCC (AAA’s father),
testified that on May 2, 2000, the family of Larry offered P50,000 and later P150,000.
The accused presented the alibi that he was at the house of the victim’s family at around 5:00 in
the afternoon doing repairs. When he arrived home, he was requested to fetch the hilot Juanita Angeles to
help with the delivery of his child. Angeles testified that he never left the side of his wife when she gave
birth at 3:00 am the next day.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Aggrieved by the decision,
appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of
Larry Erguiza.

Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court finds that there is testimonial evidence that contradicts the findings of the
RTC and CA on the basis of which no conviction beyond reasonable doubt could arise. It is the unrebutted
testimony of a credible defense witness Joy Agbuya. Her testimony makes it impossible for AAA to have
been raped because according to Joy, she never left the complainant at the mango orchard even when AAA’s
shorts got hooked to the fence, and both went home together. The Court finds no reason for Joy to since
she had nothing to gain for lying under oath. The records does not show or claim that Joy was related to or
was a close friend of Larry or his family. On the contrary, Joy considers herself the “best-friend” and
playmate of AAA. The Supreme Court is not unmindful of the doctrine that for alibi to succeed as a defense,
appellant must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his resence at another lace at the time of the
perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. The
testimony of the hilot Juanita made the appellant’s alibi substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
What needs to be stressed is that conviction in a criminal case must be supported by roof beyond
reasonable doubt- moral certainty that the accused is guilty. The conflicting testimonies of Joy and AAA,
and the testimony of Juanita preclude the Court from convicting appellant of rape with moral certainty.
Faced with two conflicting versions, the Court is guided by the equipoise rule. It provides that
where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts
the scales in favor of the accused.
Upon the prosecution’s failure to meet the test of moral certainty, acquittal becomes the duty of the
Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his
life. Larry Erguiza was acquitted and ordered immediate release.