That in, about or sometime on the last week of May, 2001, in Barangay Dimanayat, San
Luis, Province of Aurora, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
accused Jaime Brioso alyas (sic) "Talap-talap", did then and there wilfully (sic),
unlawfully and feloniously with lewdness mashed and inserted a finger into the vagina
of a four (4)-year-old child [AAA] and have carnal knowledge of the said minor child
against her will.
x x x6
cralawred
The Information was initially sent to the archives because the authorities were not able
to arrest accused-appellant. Eventually, on October 5, 2007, accused-appellant was
arrested. He was arraigned on October 25, 2007 wherein he pleaded not guilty.7
ChanRoblesVi rtua lawlib rary
In his defense, accused-appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution and raised
the defense of alibi.
Pre-trial was conducted on April 16, 2008.8 Thereafter, trial ensued.
On August 24, 2011, the RTC rendered its Decision finding accused-appellant guilty as
changed, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, under the above premises, this Court hereby finds JAIME BRIOSO GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) of
the Revised Penal Code, in relation to R.A. 7610, and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay to [AAA] the amount of Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as
exemplary damages.
chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry
SO ORDERED.9
cralawred
The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of AAA holding that she testified on the
rape that happened to her in a straightforward and credible manner. The RTC also cited
the findings of the medico-legal which corroborated the testimony of AAA. The trial
court did not give weight to accused-appellant's defense of alibi because the place
where he claims to be at the time of the rape is just a few minutes walk from the scene
of the crime, hence, it is not physically impossible for him to be at the said scene at the
time of the commission of the rape. The RTC further held that AAA positively identified
accused-appellant as the one who raped her.
Accused-appellant appealed the RTC Decision with the CA.10
ChanRoblesVirtualawli bra ry
On March 22, 2013, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision affirming the judgment of
the RTC in toto.
The CA held, others, that: it found no reason to depart from the findings of the RTC
regarding the credibility of AAA; AAA's delay in reporting her rape may not be
construed as indication of a false accusation; under the Rules of Court, a child of tender
years may be asked leading questions; accused-appellant failed to allege and prove any
improper motive on AAA's part to falsely accuse him of rape.