G.R. NO. 166544 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ARDEL CANUTO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding accused, Ardel Canuto GUILTY of the crime of rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act 7659, further amended by Art. 266-A and 266-B beyond reasonable doubt, he is sentenced to a penalty of death, to pay an indemnity of FIFTY THOUSAND (Php 50,000.00) PESOS and to pay the costs. [23] After a review of the case by the Court of Appeals to which it was forwarded by this Court pursuant to People v. Mateo , [24] the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision with modification consisting of an increase in the amount of civil indemnity and an addition of moral and exemplary damages awarded to AAA, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated May 16, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 35, in Criminal Case No. IR-5814 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that he is ordered to pay the private complainant, [AAA], P 75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto ; P 75,000.00 as moral damages ; and P 25,000.00 as exemplary damages . With costs against the accused-appellant. Pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC in re: Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases) let the entire records of this case be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court for review. [25] (Underscoring supplied) In his Brief [26] filed with this Court, appellant maintains that the lower courts erred in convicting him, the prosecution having failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [27] Appellant calls attention to AAA's declaration that she did not recognize the person who entered her grandmother's house as the only light came from a gas lamp which was quite far from her. [28] He calls attention too to AAA's failure to take any precautionary measure to secure the door of the house, following her claim that appellant had earlier raped her on June 26, 1999; [29] and to AAA's claim that she felt nothing when appellant's penis was being inserted in her vagina, unlike other similarly situated victims who would describe the experience as horrible, dreadful or painful. [30] Moreover, appellant harps on AAA's long delay in reporting the incident to thus create serious doubts on her claim, and only when she was already six months pregnant following her alleged rape by a certain Ricardo Bresinio in August 1999 [31] (A separate complaint for rape was also filed by AAA against Bresinio.) Finally, appellant questions the failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance of stepfather-stepdaughter relationship. [32] The conviction of appellant must be sustained. Appellant casts doubt on AAA having recognized him as the malefactor, in light of her admission at the time of the incident, that the only light available came from a gas lamp which was "a bit far from [her]." [33] AAA testified on re-direct examinati