G.R. No. 144634 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. AURELIO CRUZ Y RAMOS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Aurelio Cruz y Ramos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape (Violation of Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, par. 6, RA 8353 in relation to RA 7610 and par. (a), Sec. 5 of RA 8369) and sentencing him to suffer the Penalty of Death, and to indemnify the private complainant AAA in the amount of P75,000.00 and P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs. [27] In his Brief, accused-appellant proffers this lone assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, [28] he assailing the credibility of AAA. Accused-appellant argues that AAAs failure to report to her mother Juliet that she was being molested by him, and her going back home in the afternoon of May 15, 1999 even after she had confided to her aunt Susan [29] what she claimed to have gone through, infirm her credibility. And he reiterates his claim that he was drunk on May 15, 1999 and concludes that it was hard for him to rape AAA. [30] It is doctrinally settled that a rape victim who, like AAA, testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness and her testimony must be given full weight and credit. [31] And the victims credibility is enhanced when she accuses her own father. [32] For it is unthinkable, if not completely preposterous, that a daughter would audaciously concoct a story of rape against her father in wanton disregard of the unspeakable trauma and social stigma it may generate on her and the entire family. [33] AAAs failure to report the previous incidents of rape to her mother does not dent her credibility, there being no standard form of behavior expected of rape victims who react differently to emotional stress. Accused-appellants moral ascendancy could have led AAA to suffer in silence and restrain her from reporting the crime. [34] Besides, in rape cases, young girls usually conceal for some time their ordeals due to threats made by their assailants. [35] that AAA was overcome by accused-appellants threats, [36] she so clearly impressed while she was at the witness stand. AAAs credibility should not thus be tainted with any modicum of doubt. [37] As for AAAs returning home after she had revealed her ordeals to her aunt Susana: The rape subject of the case at bar occurred nighttime of May 15, 1999, after AAA had disclosed earlier in the afternoon to her aunt the previous coital assaults on her by accused-appellant. That AAA still returned home that afternoon of May 15, 1999 is not, under the factual circumstances, thus unusual. After all, she had already been suffering in silence, not to mention fear. Accused-appellants answer, however, on whether he raped AAA that he does not know as he was then drunk is a virtual mea culpa . As for accused-appellants argument that it was hard for him to rape AAA because he