G.R. No. 212336 , July 15, 2015.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARSENIO D. MISA III, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On January 14, 2005, an Information was filed accusing Arsenio D. Misa III of raping AAA, initially stated as 8 years old, later amended to 11 years old, on October 18, 2004, in Talisay, Cebu, by means of force and intimidation. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that on the said date, while she and her younger sister BBB were walking to school, the appellant called them, read AAA’s palm, gave them money, and sent BBB away. He then dragged AAA, boarded a trisikad with her while pricking her back with a sharp object, took her to a banana farm, undressed her, licked her vagina, and had carnal knowledge with her, causing her to bleed. AAA reported to a barangay tanod, went to the police, and was medically examined. BBB corroborated part of the testimony. Dr. Naomi Poca presented a Medical Certificate indicating AAA was “DEFINITE FOR SEXUAL ABUSE,” with findings of a swollen genital area, abrasions, spermatozoa, and a 10-cm abrasion on her back. RRR, AAA’s mother, testified about being informed and bringing AAA to the hospital. The defense presented the appellant, who denied knowing AAA and claimed he was working as a conductor that day. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified it to simple rape, finding that AAA’s minority was not sufficiently proven as her birth certificate (Exhibit ‘H’) was not formally offered in evidence. The CA sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and awarded damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of simple rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto. The Court held that the assessment of witness credibility by the trial court, affirmed by the CA, is generally binding. AAA’s testimony was clear, straightforward, and consistent, and was corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses. The appellant’s defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. The Court reiterated the elements of statutory rape: (1) the victim was under 12 years of age, and (2) carnal knowledge by the assailant. Citing People v. Pruna, the Court emphasized that for minority to be considered as an element or qualifying circumstance, it must be proven with moral certainty, with the birth certificate being the best evidence. Since AAA’s birth certificate was not formally offered in evidence, her minority was not duly proven. Therefore, the appellant was correctly convicted of simple rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, committed through force, threat, or intimidation, not statutory rape. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded damages were affirmed.