G.R. No. 226045. October 10, 2018.
Alberto Granton, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Alberto Granton was charged with two counts of Rape through Sexual Assault under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The Informations alleged that on September 18 and 22, 2009, he inserted his finger into the genitalia of a two-year-old child, CCC, by force and intimidation. The prosecution evidence established that the child’s housekeeper, NNN, discovered blood stains on CCC’s undergarments on multiple days. Upon questioning, CCC confirmed that her “Tito Ambet” (Granton) had touched her, demonstrating a push-and-pull finger movement. CCC’s elder sister corroborated this. The child was medically examined, and the family reported the incident to the police.
The defense presented denial and alibi. Granton claimed he was at the house of his common-law wife’s father from September 18 to 24, 2009, to discuss marriage plans. The Regional Trial Court convicted Granton, finding the victim’s credible testimony, corroborated by physical evidence and witness accounts, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Alberto Granton’s conviction for two counts of Rape through Sexual Assault.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the elements of Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The law penalizes an act of sexual assault by inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. The credible testimony of the child victim, CCC, who was consistent in her account that Granton inserted his finger into her vagina, was given full weight. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a child-victim, especially when straightforward and consistent, is accorded high credence. Her young age (four years old at trial) made it improbable for her to fabricate a story of sexual abuse.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Granton failed to establish this physical impossibility. His claimed location was not so far as to preclude his presence at the crime scene. Between the positive identification by the credible victim and the weak defense of alibi, the former prevails. The Court also sustained the modified penalties and awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.