GR 183709; (December, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183709; December 6, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MANUEL “AWIL” POJO, Appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Manuel Pojo, was charged with the statutory rape of “AAA,” the ten-year-old daughter of his common-law spouse. The prosecution’s evidence established that on October 20, 2003, AAA was sent to bring food to Pojo at a camote plantation. There, Pojo forced her to lie down, removed her clothing and his own, and inserted his penis into her vagina. While full penetration was not achieved, AAA testified to feeling the appellant’s penis touch her private part, causing her pain. She immediately reported the incident to her family, leading to a police report and medical examination. The defense consisted of denial and alibi, claiming Pojo was in Batangas on the date of the incident and that the charge was fabricated to force him to marry AAA’s mother.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of the appellant for the crime of statutory rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court upheld the credibility of AAA’s testimony, which was straightforward and consistent. As a child victim, she was found to lack the sophistication to fabricate a detailed account of rape. The defense’s shifting theories on motive—first alleging the charge was to force marriage, then claiming AAA harbored ill feelings—were deemed contradictory and unconvincing. The appellant’s defense of alibi was rejected for being uncorroborated and inherently weak against the positive identification by the victim. The Court clarified that statutory rape is consummated by the mere touching of the male organ to the female genitalia, which was proven. While the qualifying circumstance of the appellant being the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother was proven at trial, it was not alleged in the Information, precluding a conviction for qualified rape. However, this established relationship justified an award of exemplary damages. Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and the appellant was ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and an additional ₱30,000.00 in exemplary damages.