G.R. No. 179935 ; April 19, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ROGELIO ASIS y LACSON, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Rogelio Asis was charged with two counts of rape against his minor daughter, “AAA.” The first incident allegedly occurred on January 8, 1994, when AAA was below twelve years old. She testified that her father ordered her to undress, threatened to kill her if she refused, and then forcibly had carnal knowledge of her while they were alone in their house. Her brother, “BBB,” witnessed this act. The second incident allegedly occurred on August 15, 1996, when AAA was fourteen. She stated her father pulled her to a grassy area, threatened her again, and raped her, using stones to position her body. A medical examination confirmed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse.
The defense presented only the appellant, who denied both charges. For the January 1994 incident, he claimed he was working in Quezon City, only returning home briefly on January 17. For the August 1996 incident, he asserted he was at home celebrating a family birthday while AAA was at her aunt’s house nearby. He suggested AAA filed the charges due to ill feelings after he forbade her from working in Manila and whipped her for insisting.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for two counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction. The Court emphasized that the credibility of the victim’s testimony is paramount in rape cases. AAA provided a clear, consistent, and candid account of the two traumatic incidents, which the trial court found credible and unshaken by cross-examination. Her testimony was corroborated by her brother’s eyewitness account for the first rape and by the medical findings. The Court ruled that the victim’s positive identification of her father as the perpetrator prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi, which are inherently weak. Alibi must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the accused was physically impossible to be at the crime scene. The appellant’s claim of being in Quezon City on January 8, 1994, was not substantiated and did not demonstrate the required physical impossibility, especially given his admission of being home on January 17. His alibi for the second incident was likewise uncorroborated and self-serving. The alleged ill motive was insufficient to explain why a daughter would accuse her father of a grave crime and subject herself to the ordeal of a public trial. The penalties and awards of damages were affirmed with a modification increasing the exemplary damages.