GR 170475; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170475; June 7, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWARD (aka Eduardo) CORNELIO y LUCENA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
On July 22, 1999, at around 7:00 p.m., the victim, a 13-year-old girl referred to as XXX, went to a boarding house in Iriga City to return a borrowed book. As she was leaving, appellant Edward Cornelio, her uncle, approached her. He grabbed her, covered her mouth, and forcibly dragged her into a vacant room in the same boarding house. Inside, he laid her on a bed, removed her clothing and his own, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. He threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident. Out of fear, XXX remained silent.
XXX’s grandmother later noticed her bulging stomach. Upon being confronted in September 1999, XXX disclosed the rape. A medical examination confirmed her pregnancy, with the fetus estimated to be nine weeks old, consistent with the July incident. The family reported the crime to the police. Appellant was charged with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of appellant Edward Cornelio for the crime of rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, giving great weight to the credibility of the victim’s testimony. XXX provided a clear, consistent, and candid account of the forcible sexual assault, detailing how appellant employed intimidation and physical force. Her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence proving her pregnancy, which aligned with the timeline of the alleged rape.
The Court found no ill motive for XXX to falsely accuse her own uncle. In contrast, appellant’s defense of denial and alibi was inherently weak and unsubstantiated. His claim of being elsewhere during the incident was negated by evidence that he returned to the boarding house that same night. The Court emphasized that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. The award of civil indemnity and moral damages was sustained to compensate for the victim’s trauma and suffering. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the assailed decision was affirmed in toto.