G.R. No. 182239 ; March 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HERMIE M. JACINTO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Hermie M. Jacinto was charged with the rape of five-year-old AAA on January 28, 2003, in Barangay xxx, Municipality of xxx, Province of xxx. The Information alleged that with lewd design, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal knowledge of the minor victim. The prosecution presented AAA, her father FFF, and rebuttal witness Julito Apiki. Their testimonies established that: AAA and FFF knew appellant well as a neighbor and frequent visitor. On the evening of January 28, 2003, AAA followed her sister to a store. At the store, witness Julito saw appellant place AAA on his lap. Julito later saw appellant holding AAA’s hand and walking towards a lower area. AAA testified that appellant brought her to a rice field, made her lie down, removed her panty, boxed her chest, mounted her, pushed his penis into her vagina causing pain, and then left. AAA went home crying, without slippers, with mud on her head, blood oozing from the back of her head, a contusion on her neck, and with her vagina soiled with white substance and mud. She identified appellant as her assailant to her father. FFF confronted appellant at a neighbor’s house, where appellant claimed AAA had merely followed him to the store. Julito also confronted appellant at that house and noted dirt on appellant’s elbows and knees. AAA was medically examined, and the findings included multiple abrasions, hematomas, genital area soiled with debris and whitish material, and hymenal lacerations. The defense interposed alibi, with appellant, his aunt Gloria, and witness Luzvilla Balucan testifying that he was at a birthday party at the Perochos’ house during the incident, only leaving briefly to buy rum from a nearby store. Luzvilla claimed she saw Julito, not appellant, pick up AAA on the road. Antonia Perocho testified on Julito’s behavior after the incident.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt, considering the defense of alibi and the positive identification by the victim.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the victim’s positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate the physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. The Court found no such impossibility, as the defense’s own witnesses placed appellant near the locus criminis, and the store he visited was proximate to both the crime scene and the party. The testimonies of AAA, corroborated by her father and Julito Apiki, were credible, straightforward, and consistent with medical findings. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The crime was qualified as statutory rape due to AAA’s age (five years old). However, the Court modified the penalty. Applying Republic Act No. 9344 (The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), and considering that appellant was a minor (17 years old) at the time of the crime’s commission, he was entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. The imposable penalty was reduced by one degree from reclusion perpetua to reclusion temporal. Furthermore, pursuant to Sections 38 and 40 of R.A. No. 9344 , appellant, having reached the age of 21 after his conviction became final, was entitled to a suspended sentence and the benefits of rehabilitation and reintegration. The Court ordered his discharge from confinement and commitment to the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development for appropriate intervention programs, subject to the applicable provisions of R.A. No. 9344 .