G.R. No. 183563 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HENRY ARPON Y JUNTILLA, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, pursuant to Art. 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and further amended by R.A. 8353 (Rape Law of 1997) and R.A. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) the Court found accused HENRY ARPON , GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of ONE COUNT OF STATUTORY RAPE and SEVEN COUNTS OF RAPE charged under the informations and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH , and to indemnify the victim, [AAA] the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos for each count of Rape and pay moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos and pay the cost . [24] (Emphases in the original.) The court a quo found more credible the testimony of AAA. The fact that AAA was in tears when she testified convinced the trial court of the truthfulness of her rape charges against the accused-appellant. If there were inconsistencies in AAA's testimony, the trial court deemed the same understandable considering that AAA was pitted against a learned opposing counsel. The delay in the reporting of the rape incidents was not also an indication that the charges were fabricated. Moreover, the trial court ruled that the findings of the medico-legal officer confirmed that she was indeed raped. The accused-appellant's defense of alibi was likewise disregarded by the trial court, declaring that it was not physically impossible for him to be present in XXX at any time of the day after working hours while he was working in Tacloban City. The trial court stated that the accused-appellant was positively identified by AAA as the person who sexually abused her and she held no grudge against him. The trial court imposed the penalty of death as it found that AAA was less than 18 years old at the time of the commission of the rape incidents and the accused-appellant was her uncle, a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree. The trial court also appreciated against the accused-appellant the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence and nighttime. The accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration [25] of the RTC Decision, asserting that the trial court failed to consider his minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance. As stated in his direct examination, the accused-appellant claimed that he was born on February 23, 1982, such that he was only 13 and 17 years old when the incidents of rape allegedly occurred in 1995 and 1999, respectively. In a Resolution [26] dated November 6, 2002, the trial court denied the accused-appellant's motion, holding that the latter failed to substantiate with clear and convincing evidence his allegation of minority. The cases were elevated to the Court on automatic review and were docketed as G.R. Nos. 165201-08. [27] The parties then filed their respective briefs. [28] On February 7, 2006, we resolved [29] to transfer the cases to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo . [30] The cases were docketed in the appellate court as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00560. The