G.R. No. 144035 . September 27, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. VICENTE BASQUEZ Y MANZANO, appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Vicente Basquez y Manzano, was charged with the rape of Jiggle Jilt R. dela Cerna, a seven-year-old girl, on November 4, 1998, in Davao City. The prosecution’s evidence established that on the afternoon of November 4, 1998, the victim, then six years, seven months, and twenty-four days old, was on her way home from school when the appellant, whom she identified, waylaid her. He dragged her into an unoccupied, dilapidated house, tied her hands, feet, and body with a tieback, undressed himself, untied her, laid her down, and forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. After about an hour, the appellant left her still tied. The victim managed to cut the tiebacks with scissors from her school bag. The following day, she reported the incident to her grandmother, who then reported it to the police. A medical examination conducted by Dr. Danilo Ledesma revealed that the victim’s hymen was intact but that spermatozoa were found in the vaginal opening and surrounding areas. The appellant was later identified by the victim in a police lineup. The defense consisted of alibi and denial, claiming the appellant was at a vulcanizing shop helping to butcher and roast a pig from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the day in question and that during the police identification, the victim initially answered “no” when asked if he was the rapist. The Regional Trial Court of Davao City (Branch 17) found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial judge showed manifest bias and partiality against the accused by acting as a virtual prosecutor.
2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that prosecution witness Jose Despe was biased and partial in favor of the accused.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not holding that the description of the rapist given by the victim did not match the appellant.
4. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment.
1. On the alleged bias and partiality of the trial judge: The Court held that the trial judge’s active participation in questioning witnesses did not constitute bias or partiality. Judges are not mere referees; they have a duty to conduct orderly trials, clarify ambiguous testimony, and elicit facts to ascertain the truth. The judge’s questions were aimed at clarifying the evidence and did not indicate bias against the appellant.
2. On the credibility of witness Jose Despe: The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment that Despe, a barangay policeman, was biased in favor of the appellant. The trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is generally binding on appeal, as it is in a better position to observe demeanor.
3. On the alleged discrepancy in the description of the rapist: The Court ruled that the victim’s description of the appellant as wearing short pants and a white T-shirt was consistent and credible. Minor inconsistencies in a child victim’s testimony do not impair credibility but may even enhance it by indicating a lack of rehearsal. The victim’s positive identification of the appellant prevailed over his defense of alibi and denial.
4. On the conviction: The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The victim’s candid and consistent testimony, corroborated by the medical finding of spermatozoa, established the fact of rape. The defense of alibi was weak and uncorroborated. The award of civil indemnity and moral damages was sustained as proper under prevailing jurisprudence.
The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the testimony of a victim, especially a child, is accorded great weight. The appellant’s defense could not overcome the positive identification and the evidence presented by the prosecution.