G.R. No. 193664 ; March 23, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DOMINGO BANAN y LUMIDO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Domingo Banan y Lumido was charged with Statutory Rape (Criminal Case No. 10980) and Acts of Lasciviousness (Criminal Case No. 10995). The charges stemmed from incidents involving the minor AAA, born on March 30, 1994. In 2005, AAA’s mother left her and her two brothers in the care of Florentina Calagui, Banan’s wife, in PPP, Cagayan. AAA and her brothers stayed in a house adjacent to Florentina and Banan’s house.
On July 9, 2005, Banan, after asking his wife’s permission to keep AAA company, went to the house where AAA was sleeping. He poked a knife at her neck, removed her pants and underwear, kissed her, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain and could not shout as Banan covered her mouth, though she managed to kick him.
On July 12, 2005, Banan attempted to molest AAA again but was prevented when her brother DDD parried the knife, getting injured below the eye.
On July 18, 2005, AAA was lured to Banan’s house under the pretense of receiving an allowance. Banan pulled her into a room, kissed her lips, and held her vagina while armed with a bolo. AAA’s friends intervened and rescued her.
AAA initially did not report the incidents due to fear but later disclosed them to her aunt, leading to a police statement on August 1, 2005, and a medical examination. The medical findings showed a healed hymenal laceration. The testimonies of the examining physician, AAA’s mother, and brother were dispensed with by stipulation of the parties.
The defense presented alibi. Banan claimed he was working as a caretaker in Tuguegarao City from July 9 to 19, 2005, and did not go home. His wife, Florentina, corroborated this but admitted on cross-examination that Banan came home on July 12, 2005, for a family commemoration and they quarreled.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Banan guilty of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for rape and an indeterminate penalty for acts of lasciviousness, plus damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modifications to the penalty and damages for acts of lasciviousness.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the CA decision with modifications. The Court held that the prosecution proved Banan’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
1. Credibility of AAA’s Testimony: The Court found AAA’s testimony clear, consistent, and credible. It detailed the specific acts of rape and lasciviousness, including the use of a knife and force. Minor inconsistencies (e.g., referring to the date as both July 9 and July 10) did not undermine her credibility but were seen as indicative of truthfulness. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight.
2. Medical Evidence: The defense argued the lack of the physician’s testimony. The Court ruled this was not fatal. The medical certificate, showing a healed hymenal laceration, was admitted by stipulation. Furthermore, the physician’s testimony was dispensed with by agreement of both parties. In rape cases, medical findings are merely corroborative, and the victim’s credible testimony alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
3. Identification of the Accused: Banan claimed AAA could not have identified him as the room was dark. The Court rejected this, noting AAA’s explicit and unwavering identification of Banan as her assailant throughout her testimony. She knew him well as he lived next door. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification. Banan’s alibi was further weakened by his wife’s admission that he was home on July 12, 2005, and the short travel time (15 minutes) between his alleged workplace and the crime scene.
4. Elements of the Crimes: For statutory rape, all elements were present: (1) sexual intercourse with AAA, (2) accomplished through force or intimidation (use of a knife), and (3) AAA was under 12 years old at the time (11 years old). For acts of lasciviousness, the elements of lewd designs committed by force or intimidation against a minor were established by AAA’s account of the July 18, 2005 incident.
The Supreme Court modified the CA decision by increasing the civil indemnity and moral damages for rape to Php75,000 each, and exemplary damages of Php30,000. For acts of lasciviousness, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum, and ordered civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of Php30,000 each. All damages were subject to 6% interest per annum from finality of judgment.