GR 134939; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134939 February 16, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO BATO alias “RUDY BATO,” accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that on October 5, 1994, in San Antonio, Zambales, accused-appellant Rodolfo Bato called nine-year-old Delia Hernandez from a children’s home compound. He led her to a grassy area behind his brother’s property, undressed her, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will, causing her pain. A co-ward, Maryjane Olympia, later found Delia crying and being pacified by the accused. Medical examination confirmed fresh lacerations in Delia’s vagina, though tests were negative for spermatozoa.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming accused-appellant was at his own house, half a kilometer away, resting with his family at the time of the incident. He alleged he was framed due to previous conflicts with wards from the compound who stole fruits. His brother and daughter corroborated his whereabouts and the wards’ alleged mischiefs. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of statutory rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting the defense of alibi and denial.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pertained only to minor and collateral details, such as the exact location of the properties or whether the victim was crying, which do not undermine the core narrative of the rape. Such minor inconsistencies may even enhance credibility by showing the witnesses were not rehearsed. The medical findings of fresh lacerations, despite the absence of spermatozoa, were consistent with the victim’s account of penetration and pain, as the presence of sperm is not an essential element of rape.
The defense of alibi was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. For alibi to succeed, the accused must demonstrate not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Accused-appellant failed to prove this impossibility, as his alleged location was merely half a kilometer away. His denial, being a self-serving negative evidence, carried less weight than the affirmative testimony of the credible child victim. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded high respect.