G.R. No. 193666 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARLON CASTILLO Y VALENCIA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1) In Criminal Case No. Q-03-119452, finding the accused Marlon Castillo y Valencia, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article[s] 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to RA 7610 and hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . 2) In Criminal Case No. Q-03-119453, finding the accused Marlon Castillo y Valencia, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Articlefs] 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to RA 7610 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . In addition to the above penalties, the accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the private complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages. [17] The accused-appellant appealed his case to the Court of Appeals. For him, the RTC erred in giving undue credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Nene. He claimed that Nene's testimony contained many inconsistencies, improbabilities, ambiguities, and contradictions. She testified that she was six years old the first time the accused-appellant raped her while her mother was outside the house and at work, but stated in her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated November 23, 2000 that she was only four years old when the accused-appellant started sexually molesting her while her mother was inside the house sleeping. She also testified that the accused-appellant raped her by mashing her breast and trying to insert his sex organ into hers or rubbing his penis against her vagina, but she stated in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that he licked her breast and vagina, and inserted his penis and finger in her vagina. [18] The accused-appellant also pointed to the inconsistency between Nene's testimony that she was born on August 27, 1990 and her statement that she was twelve years old when the accused-appellant raped her in November 2000. He also argued that he could not have raped Nene as she herself testified that she neither felt any pain nor did her genitalia bleed. The medical report even showed that Nene's hymen was still intact and showed no sign of any genital injury. According to the accused-appellant, these inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of Nene's rape allegations. [19] In a Decision dated April 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals rejected the contentions of the accused-appellant. It found credible Nene's account during her testimony of her age and the manner she was ravished by her father. It held that the alleged inconsistencies in Nene's testimony were trivial and insufficient to render her account doubtful. [20] It further ruled that the accused-appellant committed rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. According to the appellate court: [Nene's] testimony and Sinumpaang Salaysay agreed on the following ma