GR 174199; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174199 . March 7, 2007.
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Rogelio Alarcon y Tioxon, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Rogelio Alarcon was charged with two counts of statutory rape committed against his ten-year-old daughter, AAA, in March 2001 in Los Baños, Laguna. AAA testified that during the first incident, while sleeping beside her siblings, appellant awakened her, removed her underwear, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. A few days later, a second incident occurred where appellant ordered her to lie down, removed her panty, and touched her vagina with his penis. AAA and her siblings later sought refuge at a retreat house. A medical examination revealed an old vaginal tear. Appellant denied the accusations, presenting an alibi that he was working overtime as a welder on the alleged dates, corroborated by his brother who failed to produce the daily time records.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification. For the first incident (Criminal Case No. 8620-2001-C), the Court sustained the conviction for qualified rape. AAA’s clear, categorical, and consistent testimony on the forcible sexual intercourse, corroborated by the medical finding of an old vaginal tear, established the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were duly alleged and proven. Appellant’s defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and uncorroborated by documentary evidence, especially against the positive identification by the victim.
For the second incident (Criminal Case No. 8621-2001-C), the Court agreed with the appellate court’s modification of the conviction from rape to acts of lasciviousness. The prosecution failed to prove the element of penetration. AAA’s testimony for this incident, using the phrase “Dinidikit po niya” (He was touching it against me), described lewd touching but did not establish that carnal knowledge occurred. Without proof of the entry of the male organ into the female genitalia, the crime cannot be rape. Thus, the act constituted lascivious conduct under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 . The penalties and awards of damages imposed by the Court of Appeals were affirmed.