GR 108872; (October, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108872 October 7, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN REPOLLO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On July 29, 1991, around 4:00 p.m., six-year-old Jackie Lemon Lazaga was asleep in her parents’ bedroom on the second floor of the St. Vincent Medical Clinic at Cagba, Masbate. She awoke to find the accused, Ruben Repollo, their houseboy, beside her. He removed her panty and his own short pants, placed his hand on her private part, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She cried in pain but stopped when he frightened her into silence. Her aunt and foster mother, Paquita Lazaga, arrived, found the bedroom door locked, and upon peeking through a window, saw Jackie putting on her panty with the accused present. Paquita found semen on the bed and on Jackie’s private part. Jackie was brought to the Masbate Provincial Hospital where Dr. Anthony Clores found hymenal lacerations at two and nine o’clock positions and erythema on the right labia majora. The accused was arrested and charged with rape. The trial court convicted him of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P30,000.00 as moral damages.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting his defense of alibi and denial.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the indemnity. The gravamen of statutory rape, under Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code, is carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve years of age. Since the victim was six years old, proof of force or intimidation was unnecessary; mere carnal knowledge suffices. The trial court’s findings on witness credibility are accorded great weight. The victim’s testimony was spontaneous, clear, and convincing, detailing the sexual assault and the pain she felt. It is inconceivable for a young girl to fabricate such a tale. The accused-appellant’s defense of alibi and denial, claiming the charge was motivated by a broken pail and unpaid wages, was inherently weak and unsubstantiated, failing to rebut the positive identification by the victim and other prosecution witnesses. The Court increased the indemnity to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing policy.