FACTS:

Vicente Basquez appealed the April 10, 2000 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, which found him guilty of rape. The information charged appellant with raping Jiggle Jilt R. dela Cerna, a 7-year-old girl. The prosecution presented its version of the facts, alleging that on November 4, 1998, Jiggle was walking home from school when she was waylaid by appellant. She was dragged to an unoccupied dilapidated house where she was tied up and raped by him. After the rape, she managed to free herself and reported the incident to her grandmother and the police. Medical examination results showed spermatozoa in her vagina. The defense presented alibi and denial, claiming that appellant was at a vulcanizing shop and then helping his sister on the day of the alleged rape. The trial court found appellant guilty based on the positive identification made by the victim and ruled that the defense witness was biased. Appellant appealed, challenging the trial court's alleged bias, biased testimony of the witness, inconsistency in the victim's description, and his conviction.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial judge showed manifest bias and partiality against the appellant.

2. Whether the trial court erred in declaring the testimony of Prosecution Witness Jose Despe as biased and partial to the appellant.

3. Whether the witness is a witness for the accused disguised as a prosecution witness.

4. Whether the description of the accused by the victim affects her credibility as a witness.

5. Whether minor discrepancies in the victim's testimony affect her credibility.

6. Whether the absence of complete penetration affects the finding of rape.

7. Whether partial penetration of the victim's private organ constitutes rape.

8. Whether the defense of alibi is sufficient to acquit the accused.

RULING:

1. The participation of judges in the conduct of trials cannot be condemned outrightly. Judges are not prohibited from asking questions when proper and necessary. Trial judges may ask questions to elicit relevant facts and to bring out the truth. Questions designed to clarify points and elicit additional relevant evidence are not improper. Trial judges may intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite the proceedings and prevent unnecessary waste of time. In the present case, the trial judge's questions were proper and had the purpose of clarifying certain obscure phases of the case. There is no basis to believe that the substantial rights of the appellant were prejudiced by the trial judge's conduct.

2. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and assigning values to their testimonies is best left to the trial court, which had firsthand impressions of their demeanor and conduct. In this case, the trial court declared that the testimony of Prosecution Witness Jose Despe was biased and partial to the appellant based on his evasiveness and apparent intention to exonerate the appellant. The trial court's assessment of Despe's testimony was not arbitrary or baseless. There is no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's finding.

3. The court found that the witness was indeed a witness for the accused disguised as a prosecution witness. This finding was based on the witness's testimony, which was given proper and correct affiliation in favor of the accused only upon critical questions from the court.

4. The court ruled that the appearance of the accused differed from the description given by the victim, but this did not necessarily affect her credibility as a witness. The victim positively identified the accused during the investigation and trial.

5. The court held that minor discrepancies in the victim's testimony did not detract from her credibility. The court noted that an error-free testimony cannot be expected from young children, especially when recounting harrowing experiences.

6. The court found that although there was no complete penetration, there was contact between the accused's penis and the victim's vagina. The doctor's testimony confirmed the presence of spermatozoa, thus supporting the finding of rape.

7. Yes, partial penetration of the victim's private organ constitutes rape. Existing rulings on rape do not require complete or full penetration of the victim's private organ. The mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape. Even the briefest of contacts, without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape.

8. No, the defense of alibi is not sufficient to acquit the accused. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and for it to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time. Furthermore, alibi cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of the appellant by the complainant. Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the appellant's defense of denial and alibi.

PRINCIPLES:

• Trial judges may participate in the conduct of trials, including asking questions to elicit relevant facts and to bring out the truth.

• Trial judges have the discretion to intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite the proceedings and prevent unnecessary waste of time.

• Trial judges may examine or cross-examine witnesses for the purpose of ferreting out the truth and getting to the bottom of the facts.

• The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and assigning values to their testimonies is best left to the trial court, which has firsthand impressions of their demeanor and conduct.

• The findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses are given the highest degree of respect, as they have the opportunity to personally observe the witnesses.

• Minor discrepancies in the testimony of a witness, especially a child witness, do not necessarily affect their credibility.

• Contact between the accused's penis and the victim's vagina, even without complete penetration, can still constitute rape.

• The mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape; complete or full penetration is not required.

• Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time. Categorical and consistent positive identification prevails over the defense of alibi.