G.R. No. 140216 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RENATO C. BACUS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered convicting the accused of the crime charged and he is hereby imposed or punished by a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The accused is further directed to indemnify the victim moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00 plus costs. [2] In his appeal to this Court, appellant would insist that he should not be held responsible because the actuations of Viminda before and during the act of intercourse, including their foreplay, were simply incongruous with the idea of rape. Claiming that the filing of the rape charge was an afterthought, the original complaint lodged with the police being one for robbery, appellant would point to the propensity of Viminda to lie. He recited an inconsistency in her affidavit where she stated that she called up the police authorities as early as four-thirty in the morning on 13 October 1997 but, later in her testimony in court, she said that it was not until eight oclock in the morning when she went to the police station. In reviewing rape cases, the Court has, like before, been guided by the reality that an accusation for rape can be made with facility; that it is difficult to prove but even more difficult for an accused, although innocent, to disprove; and that by the peculiar nature of the crime, it is, more often than not, only the accused and the complainant who can give testimony on the incident. Great care must thus be exercised in the scrutiny of testimonial evidence given by the parties. It should also stand to reason that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses are to be accorded great weight for the trial judge, obviously, would be in a better position to personally perceive from the witnesses the veracity of their asseverations and see the thin line between fact and prevarication. [3] Perusing the records and guided by the above principles, the Court fails to find any cogent justification to make it ignore the assessment of the trial court on the conflicting asseverations made before it. Neither does the Court see flaws in the statements made by private complainant on the witness stand which, on the contrary, appear to be particularly candid and straightforward. Viminda Sudario has testified thusly: Q - On October 13, 1997 at about 4:00 oclock in the morning, can you recall where [you were]? A - I was sleeping in my house in the upper floor. Q - Can you tell us where your house is located? A - No. 7 F. Llamas St., Mambaling, Cebu City. Q - Who were with you at that time? A - My three children and my single daughter who were sleeping in the other room. Q - While you were sleeping at your residence on October 13, 1997 at about 4:00 oclock in the morning, can you tell us if there [was] anything unusual [that] happened? A - I heard some commotion downstairs. Q - After you heard some commotion downstairs, what did you do? A - I went down to investigate. Q - And when you investigated, what hap