that his advanced age had made him impotent. This Court, however, had already convicted a 70year old man for twice raping the 16-year old complainant. 23 Recently, it also convicted a 69year-old man, who was suffering from a coronary artery disease, for raping a healthy 29-yearold. 24
Moreover, the presumption is in favor of potency, 25 because impotency is an abnormal
condition. The Court has also ruled that "impotency as a defense in rape cases must be proven
with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of potency." 26
Appellant is a robust farmer and an active individual in his community, he being the president of
the Irrigation Association. He is also married with five children. Other than his basic assertion,
no evidence was presented to show that he had become impotent prior to the rape incidents.
There is therefore no reason to overturn the presumption in favor of potency.
Appellant’s Alibi
Appellant contends that he was attending a seminar at another barangay when Teresa was raped
around 3:00 p.m. on June 2, 1998.
We are not persuaded. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it can be concocted easily
and is difficult to disprove. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendant was
somewhere else when the crime was committed; it must likewise be demonstrated that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time. 27
In the present case, Teresa positively identified appellant as the culprit. Furthermore, the distance
was too short between Sitio San Antonio, Barangay Arzadon, where the rapes were committed;
and Barangay Cabacaraan, where appellant allegedly attended a seminar from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Thus, the possibility of appellant being at the scene of the crime cannot be discounted.
Aside from affirming appellant’s conviction, the Court also sentences him to pay indemnity ex
delicto of P50,000 for each of the three rape cases, consistent with existing jurisprudence. 28 We
likewise delete the award of exemplary damages, as no aggravating circumstances were proven.
29
cralawlibrary : red
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and. the assailed Decision is MODIFIED by the
additional GRANT of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto for each count of rape and the deletion of
the award of exemplary damages. Costs against Appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Endnotes: