People vs.

Michael Espera
GR No. 202868. October 02, 2013

Nature: Appeal from CA decision affirming, with modificatopm the omnibus decision of the RTC
Bohol finding Espera guilty of rape by sexual assault and rape by sexual intercourse.

Facts: Espera was accused of two counts of rape, to which he pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Pre-trial was conducted and trial ensued. The victim was on her way home from her work at the
clinic with her friend. They hailed a tricycle at around 11:30 pm; When she shone a beam of
flashlight unto the driver and vehicle, she recognized the driver Espera by face, wearing a red shirt
and maong pants, but not by name. Victim’s friend was first to disembark. Upon reaching her
house, the tricycle did not stop but kept on going until they reached a quarry site, where the Espera
said that the brakes were faulty. While tracing her way home, the victim noticed that Espera was
following her, his shirt was already covering his face and holding a gun. When she ran and shouted
for help, Espera caught up with her and beat her first before dragging her to a secluded location
where he raped her by inserting his organ into her mouth then proceeded to penetrate her sex organ.
After the deed, Espera threatened to kill her if she would tell the truth. The next day, the victim
told her mother of the ordeal; she confessed the next day to her friend when she did not come to
the clinic. She was then examined by a doctor and reported the incident to the authorities. At the
police station, she recognized Espera through his voice, even though he cut his hair and shaved his
beard. Espera left town but was eventually apprehended. Espera’s alibi was that he lived far away
from the crime scene and that he was at home drunk and sleeping. RTC Bohol found Espera guilty
on account of the victim’s richly detailed testimony, results of the medical exam, positive
identification of Espera by the victim, the alibi of the accused, and his sudden flight from town.
Upon appeal to CA, Espera contended that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the
alleged perpetrator was doubtful. However, CA affirmed the RTC’s finding of guilt with
modification as to damages. Hence, appeal to SC.

Issue: Whether the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused as the author of the
crime?

Ruling: No. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence until and unless his guilt is proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The law requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt not
only each element of the crime but also the identity of the accused as the criminal. In this case, the
prosecution’s evidence on the identity of Espera as the offender is clear and unmistakable: The
victim and her friend positively identified Espera as the tricycle driver wearing the same clothes
on that night when they beamed a flashlight on him and his tricycle; Espera stopped the vehicle in
a place where the victim is in a vulnerable position; Espera took off his red shirt and covered his
face then followed the victim with a gun; she recognized him when Espera was presented at the
police station even though he changed his appearance; she also positively identified him in open
court upon testimony. CA also correctly ruled that Espera was identified not only by his appearance
but also his voice. Under the victims’ testimony, Espera’s denial and alibi are weak and useless.

Resolution: Espera was found guilty. CA decision with modification was affirmed with further
modification as to the legal interest imposed on the damages.