G.R. NO. 168649 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the accused, JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE, is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Rape (RA 8353) filed against him and is sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH in each case. The accused is further ordered to indemnify the private complaint in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP100,000.00) and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PhP50,000.00) as moral damages so as to serve as deterrent to this disturbing trend, plus the costs of the suit. [11] Ignoring accused-appellant's defenses, the trial court ratiocinated: The accused interposed a number of defenses. First, that of alibi. Jose Audine stated that the December 24, 1999 and January 8, 2000 alleged rape incidents could not be true as he was already in Sariaya, Quezon then, having returned to the province right after taking AAA to her cousin Arminda Arganosa's house in XXX. Second, the accused denied having raped her daughter and stressed that her daughter had ran away with her boyfriend, BBB, in Sariaya, Quezon on September of 1999 giving an implication that the pregnancy could be attributed to that. He only wanted to stop AAA from seeing her "womanizer-cum-addict" boyfriend, BBB. He corroborated AAA's testimony that he filed a rape case in Sariaya, Quezon against BBB. However, realizing the futility of his defense, the accused shifted his defense in the middle of the trial. According to the accused, his cousin Arminda Arganosa was arrested for illegal possession of a big amount of shabu in Dalampasigan Beach in Dalahican, Sariaya, Quezon, and Arminda suspected that he was behind her arrest. He also accused Arminda of acting as a "pimp" to her daughter as she vowed to get even with Jose Audine, an allegation too incredible to believe considering AAA's pregnancy was very noticeable then. In People vs. Balgos, 323 SCRA 372, it was held that an "accused's shift of theory, upon realizing the futility of his earlier defense, rather than help his cause, only further damaged his credibility." [12] Considering that the penalty it imposed was the death penalty, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. [13] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo , [14] the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. On 18 February 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming the conviction of accused-appellant, together with the imposition of the death penalty for each count of rape, but modified the awards of civil indemnity and damages. The dispositive portion thereof reads: UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the appealed Decision dated December 5, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 272, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2001-4093-MK and 2001-4094-MK, finding the accused-appellant JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and