G.R. No. 77912 March 6, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO SANTOS, @ “KARIBA”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Ernesto Santos, was convicted of statutory rape by the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The amended information alleged that on November 26, 1984, in Obando, Bulacan, the accused, then 25 years old, had carnal knowledge of the nine-year-old victim, Priscilla Marcos, through force and intimidation. The prosecution’s evidence established that on said date, the victim’s mother left her in the care of her aunt, Asuncion Marcos. While the aunt briefly went to a store, the accused entered the house, undressed the victim, and had intercourse with her.
The aunt, Asuncion, returned to find the accused on top of the naked victim. The accused immediately dressed, warned them not to report the incident, and fled. The matter was reported to the police that same evening. A medical examination conducted on the victim revealed a superficial hymenal laceration, with the physician concluding that penetration, though not full, had occurred. The accused interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at a neighbor’s house opposite the victim’s residence at the time of the incident.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape based on the testimony of the child victim and the corroborative evidence, and in awarding moral damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the civil indemnity. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the victim, being ten years old when she testified, was incompetent as a witness under Rule 130, Section 19(b) of the Rules of Court. The law disqualifies only children of such tender age and inferior capacity as to be incapable of receiving correct impressions or relating them truly. The trial court found, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the victim’s clear, convincing, and naive narration of the event demonstrated her competence and the truthfulness of her account. Her testimony was not a concoction.
The defense of alibi was properly dismissed. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime happened but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. The accused himself testified that his residence was only about 20 meters away from the victim’s house, and the place he claimed to be at was just opposite it. This proximity negated any claim of physical impossibility. The testimonies of the victim’s aunt and mother were accorded full credibility. Relationship alone does not impair a witness’s credibility, and it is inconceivable that a family would fabricate a rape charge and subject a young child to the ordeal of an examination and public trial.
On the civil aspect, the Court found the award of P10,000.00 as moral damages insufficient. Citing precedent, the Court increased the amount to P50,000.00, recognizing the profound and lasting trauma inflicted by the sexual assault on an eight-year-old child. The judgment of conviction was thus affirmed with the modification regarding the indemnity.