G.R. No. 122768 April 27, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO BERSABE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On June 11, 1984, in Maragondon, Cavite, six-year-old Arlyn Ramos was at the house of Aida Bersabe, the wife of appellant Gregorio Bersabe’s brother, during a town fiesta. While alone with the appellant, they played a game. The appellant then gave her candy and money, pushed her to lie down on a bed, and removed her shorts, panty, and undershirt. He also undressed himself. The appellant inserted his finger into her vagina and then his penis, doing so four times. Arlyn felt pain and her private part bled. She cried but did not shout because the appellant threatened to kill her. Afterward, he dressed her and himself and brought her to a nearby house. On June 14, 1984, Arlyn’s elder sister, Precita Ramos, fetched her. Arlyn was reluctant to go home and appeared afraid. Upon reaching home, Arlyn revealed to Precita that the appellant had inserted his finger and penis into her. The next day, June 15, 1984, Arlyn, accompanied by Precita, filed a complaint for rape at the Maragondon police station. On June 16, 1984, Dr. Gregoria Camilo examined Arlyn and found her vulva congested and with fresh hymenal tears at 1:00, 6:00, and 11:00 o’clock positions. An Information was filed charging Gregorio Bersabe with rape. The accused pleaded not guilty, raising the defenses of denial and alibi, claiming he attended a show during the afternoon of June 11, 1984. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and indemnification.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape despite his guilt not being proved beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the trial court’s Decision. The Court held that the trial court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great respect and should not be disturbed on appeal absent any showing of overlooked facts or misinterpretations. The testimony of the six-year-old victim was straightforward, clear, and convincing, detailing the sexual assault. The Court emphasized that no young girl would concoct a story of rape, undergo examination, and endure a public trial unless it truly happened. The victim’s credible testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Gregoria Camilo, which indicated fresh hymenal lacerations consistent with recent sexual intercourse. The defenses of denial and alibi were weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the crime committed was statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as the victim was under twelve years of age, making her consent immaterial. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity were affirmed.