G.R. No. 182924 , December 24, 2008
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Jose Perez @ Dalegdeg, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging Jose Perez with statutory rape committed against AAA, a six-year-old minor, on September 19, 1999, in Barangay XXX, Municipality of XXX, Palawan. During the pre-trial, appellant admitted the victim’s age and his presence in the barangay on the date of the incident. The prosecution evidence established that on the evening of September 19, 1999, AAA was watching a movie with her father and siblings. After the movie, she was found crying and reported being hit by the appellant. Upon arriving home, her mother noticed AAA’s private part was bleeding. The following morning, AAA disclosed that appellant struck her, brought her behind a house, inserted his finger into her vagina, and then his sex organ, causing her to lose consciousness from pain. AAA was medically examined by Dr. Jerry Gundayao, who found fresh hymenal lacerations and other injuries consistent with sexual abuse. Psychologist Shiela Chan later diagnosed AAA with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The defense presented alibi and denial, with appellant claiming he was in a different barangay and his father testifying he saw appellant hand AAA to her father at the movie showing. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of statutory rape and imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and awarded exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The credible, straightforward, and spontaneous testimony of the child victim, AAA, positively identifying appellant as her rapist, was accorded full weight. Her testimony was consistent with the medical findings of Dr. Gundayao, which confirmed sexual intercourse, and the psychological report indicating trauma. The defenses of denial and alibi were inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The crime committed was statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 , as the victim was under twelve years of age. The qualifying circumstance that the victim was below seven years old was present, which under the law at the time warranted the death penalty. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 , which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court affirmed the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages and sustained the award of exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance.