G.R. No. 176153 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. OLIGARIO BALONZO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the court finds accused OLIGARIO BALONZO guilty of the crime of Qualified Rape defined and punished under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH. He is further ordered to pay the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages. [7] The trial court brushed aside appellants defense which was based mainly on denial. It described as steadfast AAAs testimony relating to the rape perpetrated upon her by appellant [8] whom she identified in open court. The records of the case were then forwarded to the Court of Appeals pursuant to this Courts holding in People v. Mateo , [9] which allows for the intermediate review by the Court of Appeals of cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. [10] On 6 October 2006, the appellate court rendered the now assailed decision which affirmed, with modification, the judgment of the trial court, thus: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that herein accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua , in lieu of the supreme penalty of death. [11] In modifying the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals took cognizance of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346, otherwise known as An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines. Appellant assigns the following sole error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF QUALIFIED RAPE AND IN IMPOSING UPON HIM THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH. [12] Appellant insists that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to convict him. He also claims that the trial court erred in putting premium on AAAs testimony since her testimony was so inconsistent with common experience. For one, appellant points out that per AAAs admission, she did not offer any resistance to his alleged sexual advances despite the fact that he was supposedly unarmed at that time. He argues that AAA could have easily shouted for help considering that her siblings were sleeping nearby. [13] Appellant also draws our attention to the lack of medical finding to support AAAs accusation. He asserts that while it was alleged that AAA underwent physical examination, the medical certificate that would support said claim was not presented before the court. Similarly, the doctor who supposedly conducted the said examination was not presented by the prosecution. [14] As regards the age of AAA, appellant claims that the prosecution failed to show proof that she was really a minor at the time of the alleged rape for she presented a mere photocopy of her birth certificate and not the original thereof. [15] We are not persuaded. In determining the innocence or guilt