G.R. No. 87928 ; April 30, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MATIAS GRAZA Y FETIL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On October 22, 1984, seven-year-old Luz Cerilo was walking home from school in Nabua, Camarines Sur. Appellant Matias Graza, her uncle by affinity, approached her, offered money, and then chased her when she fled. He caught her, pulled her into a forested area, and threatened her with imprisonment if she told anyone. He then removed her panty, laid on top of her, and inserted his sexual organ into her private part, causing her pain and loss of consciousness. Upon waking, she went home but, due to fear, did not immediately report the incident to her mother, Amparo Cerilo. Two days later, Amparo noticed her daughter wiping her private part, observed a dirty sticky substance, blood on her dress, and bruises on her legs. When asked, Luz identified appellant as her rapist.
The defense presented alibi, with appellant’s wife testifying he was working in their ricefield from 3:00 to 5:00 PM on the day of the incident. The trial court convicted appellant of rape, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals, upon review, certified the case to the Supreme Court as the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the nature of statutory rape and the credibility of the victim’s testimony. For statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the sole essential element is carnal knowledge of a female below twelve years of age. Force, intimidation, or physical evidence of injury are immaterial. The victim was seven years old, thus sexual intercourse with her constituted rape per se. The Court found her testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent on the material points of the assault. Her initial failure to immediately report the crime due to appellant’s threats of imprisonment did not impair her credibility, as such reaction is understandable for a frightened child.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. The trial court found that the path from the victim’s school passed by the ricefield where appellant worked, making it not physically impossible for him to have committed the crime. Furthermore, the defense’s failure to present corroborating witnesses, like appellant’s alleged helper, weakened the alibi. The Supreme Court modified the indemnity to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence but sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua.