G.R. No. 132715 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Rep. Act No. 7659, Sec. 11 as amended and hereby imposes upon the accused, Dominador Tabion, the penalty of death." In view of the penalty imposed, this case was elevated direct to this Court for automatic review. [9] Issue In his Brief, [10] appellant makes this lone assignment of error: [11] "The court a quo gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt." This Courts Ruling The appellant may be convicted only of simple, not qualified, rape. Hence, his penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua . Main Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence In his Brief, appellant pleads for acquittal, on the anemic argument that the private complainant instituted the criminal charge, merely because she hated him so much for his having been a member of the NPA (New People's Army). Without much ado, he submits that the evidence of the prosecution was not enough to overcome the constitutional presumption of his innocence. [12] The settled guiding principles in reviewing rape cases are: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but it is difficult for the accused to disprove, though he may be innocent; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [13] Corollary to these is the principle that when a victim of rape says that she was defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. [14] The application of this doctrine becomes even more compelling when the culprit is a close relative of the victim. [15] After meticulously perusing the records and evaluating the evidence, the Court is convinced beyond doubt of the credibility and the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence establishing that appellant raped his own daughter Regin. As the solicitor general observed, the testimony of the victim is replete with details; she was categorical, straightforward, unshaken and unwavering even during the grueling cross-examination. She candidly related her sordid tale thus: [16] "Q. Miss Regine Tabion, please tell this Court, where you were on 11th day of May, 1996 at about 9:30 o'clock in the morning? A. I was at home. Q. And your house is located in Bagong Lipunan, Bantayan, Cebu? A. Yes. Q. While you were in your house, what were you doing at that time? A. I was weaving baskets. xxx xxx xxx FISCAL MAÑALAC: Q. While you were weaving a basket, did your father