GR 185004; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185004 ; August 25, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ARMANDO FERASOL, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Armando Ferasol was charged with the statutory rape of his nine-year-old niece, AAA. The prosecution alleged that on August 31, 2001, in South Cotabato, appellant called AAA to his house, removed her clothing, and had carnal knowledge of her. He then threatened to kill her and her family if she disclosed the act. AAA initially remained silent but later exhibited signs of distress. Her teacher, suspecting abuse, advised a medical examination, during which AAA revealed the rape to the municipal health officer. The prosecution established that appellant had sexually abused AAA on multiple occasions since she was in Grade 3.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Appellant claimed he was in Sitio Lubo, an eight-hour ride away, from August 28 to September 1, 2001, to borrow money for his daughter’s hospital bills. He asserted he was helping a friend dry and sell corn during that period. His friend corroborated this testimony, stating appellant borrowed ₱4,000.00 from the proceeds.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for statutory rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the complainant’s credibility is paramount. It found AAA’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent even under cross-examination. Minor lapses in her narration were deemed natural for a child recounting a traumatic experience and did not undermine her core account of the sexual assault. The medical examination provided corroborative evidence.
The Court rejected the defense of alibi as inherently weak. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Appellant failed to establish this impossibility, as Sitio Lubo was merely an eight-hour ride away, not rendering his presence at the locus criminis unfeasible. Denial, being a negative defense, cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification by the victim. The affirmed penalty is reclusion perpetua without parole. The Court modified the damages, awarding ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages.