G.R. No. 178066 ; February 6, 2008
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROLANDO ZAMORAGA, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Rolando Zamoraga, a second cousin of the victim’s mother, was charged with two counts of rape against his niece, AAA. The first incident allegedly occurred in June 1996, and the last on November 7, 1997, when AAA was eight and nine years old, respectively. AAA testified that appellant, while staying in their house, would sexually assault her at night. She positively identified him, recognizing him by moonlight filtering through bamboo walls. She reported the abuse in November 1997, leading to a medical examination that revealed hymenal lacerations consistent with forcible sexual intercourse. The prosecution also presented AAA’s birth certificate to prove her minority.
The defense interposed alibi and denial. Appellant claimed he was working in Davao City or Tagum City during the alleged incidents, staying at his aunt’s house located two to three kilometers from AAA’s residence. His aunt, BBB, corroborated this alibi. The defense also challenged AAA’s credibility, suggesting her testimony was rehearsed and motivated by her parents’ ill feelings towards appellant.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for two counts of statutory rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the credibility of AAA’s categorical, consistent, and straightforward testimony, which withstood rigorous cross-examination. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Appellant failed to meet this burden, as his own admission and corroborating testimony placed him only two to three kilometers away from the crime scene, a distance not constituting physical impossibility. Denial, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim.
Given AAA’s minority, established by her birth certificate, and the fact that appellant is a relative within the third civil degree (her uncle), the crime committed is statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. In statutory rape, force, intimidation, or consent become irrelevant; the mere carnal knowledge of a child under twelve is punishable. The Court sustained the modified awards of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.