People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Violeja Y Asartin
G.R. No. 177140, October 17, 2012
Ponente: Leonardo- De Castro
Facts:
Version of the Prosecution: The trial court found Alejandro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the RPC. The rape involved in this case was committed before the amendment of Art. 335 of the RPC by R.A. No. 8353 or the Anti- Rape Law of 1997. Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. Evidence of the prosecution shows that private complainant Vea was only 10 years old when the incident took place. Accused was the common law husband of the mother of Vea. The victim narrated that appellant forced to insert her penis to her vagina and sometimes appellant entered the room and instructed Vea to suck on his penis. It was also recalled by the victim that every time her mother is leaving the house for town accused would enter their room and have carnal knowledge with her. Accused appellant however admitted to the mother that he repeatedly molested her child. From then Vea run away from home, after which the victim and her mother lodged a complaint to the barangay and police authorities. Victim was examined by Dr. Pang and testified that there are indeed lacerations.
Version of the defense: Appellant invoke alibi in his defense. Instead he testified that he once saw a man on top of Vel, Vea’s mother and saw Vea playing outside the house with his kids and that near Vea was a naked man lying down face and because of the incident he saw he turned away from home. And when he decided to go home he was arrested and mauled by Barangay official causing his consciousness and it was only in the municipal jail that he had regained the same.
Despite the trial court convicted him of the crime charged.
Issue:
Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the accused defense of alibi and in giving credence to the testimonies of the Prosecution’s witnesses.
Ruling:
No. Since it is a settled jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused maybe convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. The court affirms the ruling of the lower courts that the elements of rape are indeed present in the case at bar. The victims clear and credible testimony coupled with the corroboration made by the medical findings of Dr. Pangs point positively to the conclusion that appellant indeed committed the crime of rape attributed to him. The defense of alibi is not likewise proper because he must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within the immediate vicinity. Appellant failed to established to established the distance between the corn plantation where he is working and the house where the rape occurred.
