G.R. No. 138866 ; March 6, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRIS PAROCHA Y MAMON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Cris Parocha, was charged with the statutory rape of eight-year-old Angel Jungco. The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the eyewitness account of the victim’s eleven-year-old brother, Jernnie. He testified that in the early morning of May 14, 1997, after their mother left, Parocha entered their house, covered his face with his shirt, took a knife, and entered the bedroom. Parocha then proceeded to remove Angel’s clothing and his own, positioned himself on top of the sleeping victim, and covered her mouth when she awoke. Jernnie witnessed the act and later saw blood on the mat. Parocha threatened Jernnie not to report the incident. The children immediately reported to their mother, leading to a medical examination which confirmed recent sexual intercourse and fresh lacerations. The defense presented an alibi, with Parocha claiming he was drinking with a friend and then at home with his mother during the alleged time, corroborated by a neighbor who claimed to have been washing clothes nearby all night.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant’s conviction for statutory rape can be sustained despite the prosecution’s decision not to present the victim as a witness.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the non-presentation of the rape victim is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The prosecution has the discretion to spare a young victim from the trauma of testifying, provided other evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the testimony of the eyewitness, Jernnie, was deemed credible, candid, and sufficient to establish both the fact of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator. His detailed account was consistent and corroborated by the fresh medico-legal findings. The Court rejected the defense of alibi for failure to prove it was physically impossible for Parocha to be at the crime scene, noting the neighbor’s testimony was unreliable as she could not have constantly monitored his movements while busy with her chore. The defense’s claim of a violation of the right to counsel during detention was also dismissed, as no coerced statement was used in evidence. The trial court’s decision was affirmed but modified to award an additional P50,000.00 in moral damages to the victim, recognizing the inherent psychological injury from the crime.