FACTS:

The case involves the conviction of Julieto Sanchez, also known as "Ompong," who was found guilty of raping a ten-year-old girl, referred to as AAA, on June 20, 2002. According to the accounts presented in court, the 26-year-old Sanchez, in the company of a 14-year-old co-accused, encountered AAA while she was returning home from school. Sanchez pursued the girl, caught her, muffled her with a handkerchief, and forcibly led her to a secluded bamboo grove. There, he tied her hands and feet with wire, removed her lower garments, and subjected her to physical abuse by kicking her, which caused her to fall down in a vulnerable position. Sanchez then removed his own lower garments and proceeded to violate AAA sexually, causing her significant pain. The co-accused minor also perpetrated a similar act upon AAA. Following this horrendous assault, they released AAA, cautioning her against exposing the assault. The following day, AAA confided in her mother about the incident, prompted by inquiries concerning bloodstains discovered on her clothing. Her parents reported the matter to the police, leading to a physical examination which confirmed several lacerations in her vaginal area. During the ensuing investigation, AAA identified Sanchez and his accomplice as her attackers. Sanchez, on the other hand, denied any involvement and claimed an alibi that he was attending his grandfather’s wake during the time of the incident, asserting he did not know AAA and had no understanding of why she accused him. Nonetheless, the Regional Trial Court found AAA's testimony credible and convincing, outweighing Sanchez's denial and alibi, and consequently, convicted him of the crime.

ISSUES:

Whether the guilt of the appellant, Julieto Sanchez, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

The Supreme Court found no reason to reverse the conviction of the appellant. The Court upheld the findings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals that the testimony of AAA, the victim, was credible. The inconsistencies in AAA's testimony were deemed trivial and did not affect the determination of the appellant's guilt. The Court dismissed the appellant's claims that another person committed the crime and that he had a strong alibi. The appellant's alibi was not corroborated and did not satisfy the requirement of physical impossibility. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua were affirmed. The Supreme Court also modified the decision of the Court of Appeals by additionally awarding AAA P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

PRINCIPLES:

1. The credibility of witnesses is given the highest respect by the appellate court, especially when the trial court's findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

2. Inconsistencies in testimony that are trivial do not typically affect the credibility of a witness.

3. Positive identification by a credible witness prevails over the defense of alibi.

4. The award of exemplary damages may be justified to deter serious wrongdoing and to address the reprehensible conduct of the offender.