G.R. No. 133827 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. COSME L. PASTORETE, JR., ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape punishable under Article 355 (sic) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659, the Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and further, to pay P30,000.00 as exemplary damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the cost. [18] Aggrieved, appellant now anchors his appeal on the allegation that: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT COSME L. PASTORETE, JR. GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE. [19] Appellant contends that there is no moral certainty that he committed rape, to warrant his conviction. He vehemently asserts that private complainant, AAA, consented to having sex with him, and she was the one who initiated the sexual act. He avers that complainants position during the rape, her lack of resistance, and her failure to shout are all indications of her willingness and consent. Finally, appellant dismisses the testimony of complainant as unworthy of belief. According to him, it is unbelievable that she would be rendered unconscious by a mere slap on the neck. [20] For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) points out that the testimony of complainant was positive, straightforward and credible, especially since there was no showing that complainant was motivated by ill will to testify falsely against appellant. The OSG also stresses that the fact that the rape occurred inside the small confines of a taxi cab does not eliminate the possibility of rape, which can be committed in the unlikeliest of places. Finally, the OSG contends that the finding of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses deserves utmost respect. [21] The issue is whether rape was proved beyond reasonable doubt. It boils down to the credibility of witnesses. In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person of the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. [22] It is also axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and manner of testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the truth. [23] Guided by these principles, after a painstaking review of the records of this case, we find no reason to overturn the trial courts decision. The