PEOPLE v ALVARIO (Romero, 1997) 1 FACTS: Esterlina Quintero, a 29 year old single mother took time off her current jo as housekee!er in "akati to look for another !lace of em!loyment# $ith the hel! of Aling Soling she %as introduced to accused Al&ario# She thereafter agreed to cook for him and do his laundry for '())#)) *month# She %as told that she could egin that &ery day thus she %as taken to a t%o story house in +el Air, %here the only other occu!ant %as Alma +arliso, another maid# Armand Al&ario on the other hand is a mere caretaker of the house o%ned y Atty# ogelio San -uis# According to Esterlina on the first day of %ork she %as not allo%ed to eat and on the follo%ing day she %as merely allo%ed to eat t%o s!oonfuls of left.o&er food# Al&ario %ould lea&e the house at / am and return at 0!m, directing Esterlina not to go out of the house nor to talk to Alma# Esterlina relates that e&ry night, Al&ario %ould come into her room and force himself u!on her# 1ut of fear ecause he had a gun and threatened to file a case against her, Esterlina did not resist nor defend herself# This ha!!ened for all the days she %as under the em!loy of Al&ario, she did not make a !hone call to her sister ecause she %as afraid and she did not try to esca!e ecause Al&ario locked all the doors and the gate# After / days, finally mustering enough courage she rang her sister, %ho manage d to held her sister through her em!loyer# Al&ario %as thereafter arrested %ithout %arrant3 and %as later found guilty y the court# The court did not gi&e credence to his 4s%eetheart5 defense theory# This case %as an a!!eal y Al&ario on the con&iction c on&iction against him C16T: 1. The court re&erses the con&iction against Al&ario, stating that %hile the defense is not !ersuasi&e enough, the !rosecution is e&en less con&incing in !ro&ing the guilt of Al&ario eyond reasonale dout# 2. The court holds that the !rosecution did not successfully !ro&e the !resence of force and intimidation as contem!lated in Art 770 of 'C# The only e&idence !resented %ere the testimonies of the &ictim, her sister and one of the arresting officers# 8one of the testimonies of "erlyn Quintero and S'17 icardo eyes relate to the actual seual assaults as narrated y Esterlina# The medical re!ort does not !ro&e the charge of ra!e ut rather olsters the claim of the defense consensual se3#
3. "oreo&er, the court took notice %hy Alma %as not !resented as a %itness and the fact that the house %as not located in an isolated !lace and her seeming indifference to her !redicament and her failure to defend herself and remain !assi&e# The court cites: People v. Sinatao: . . . (A) ravi!"e# ravi!"e# $oman $o%l# in!tin&tivel' in!tin&tivel' &all or "elp or at e!t lee rom "er le&"ero%! &aptor to !aer *ro%n#! $"en opport%nitie! pre!ent t"em!elve!.+ ,. The court further states that the 4t must, ho%e&er, e rememered that the eistence of a !resum!tion indicating guilt does not in itself destroy the !resum!tion against innocence unless the incul!ating !resum!tion, together %ith all of the e&idence, or the lack of any e&idence or e!lanation, is sufficient to o&ercome the !resum!tion of innocence y !ro&ing the defendant;s guilt guilt eyond a reasonale dout# 6ntil the defendant;s guilt is sho%n in this manner, the !resum!tion of innocence continues#5 1
