G.R. No. 179190 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ALBERTO L. MAHINAY, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Alberto Mahinay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentences him to reclusion perpetua. He is likewise directed to indemnify [AAA] the sum of P50,000.00 and another sum of P30,000.00 as and for moral damages. With cost against the accused. [4] The records of the case were transmitted to this Court for automatic review. However, conformably with the ruling of this Court in People v. Mateo , [5] the case was referred to the Court of Appeals. On 26 October 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming the conviction of Mahinay, with modification as to the amount of damages. The dispositive portion of the Decision states: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Alberto Mahinay is hereby ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. Costs de oficio . [6] Mahinay appealed to this Court, claiming that it is highly improbable for him to have committed the crime of rape because other persons were in the house where the alleged rape took place. Furthermore, Mahinay claims that AAA failed to put up sufficient resistance against the alleged acts of Mahinay. Finally, Mahinay also contends that AAA's delay in reporting the incident to her mother was tantamount to giving consent to the sexual act. We are not persuaded. Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court. [7] As a general rule, when the question is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, and therefore could better discern if such witnesses were telling the truth; the trial court is thus in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies. [8] In the instant case, the trial court even categorically stated that Mahinay "was hesitant, uneasy and evasive in his answers to the questions propounded by the prosecutor." There is no merit in Mahinay's contention that it is highly improbable for him to have committed the crime of rape because other persons were in the house where the alleged rape took place. According to Mahinay, AAA herself testified that there were other people present when the alleged rape took place. This is misleading. AAA clearly stated that the people referred to were outside the house during the incident: ATTY. PORIO (cross examination) Q: And there were no people around inside the house of Sidra at that time? A: The children were outside the house while both of us were inside the house. Q: Inside the house at the kitchen, is that right? A: Yes, Ma'am. [9] Either way, this