G.R. No. 139410 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. SILVERIO AGUERO, JR. Y BUENA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, this court finds the accused SILVERIO AGUERO, JR. Y BUENA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, defined and penalized under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659 and hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the private complainant Almira Ava A. Aguinillo the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED . [8] Accused-appellant now appeals before this Court and pleads for the reversal of the trial court's decision pointing out the following errors: THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE CONFLICTING AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS ALMIRA AVA A. AGUINILLO. Accused-appellant reiterates his defense that it was highly improbable for him to have raped complainant and threatened her with a knife. This is because his left hand was afflicted with polio and could not hold an object longer than two to five minutes as it would start to shake and loosen its grip. He also points out inconsistencies in the testimony of complainant which allegedly detract from her credibility as a witness. According to accused-appellant, while complainant denied that her cousin Rachelle Sumayaw was also residing in her grandmother's house, her grandmother admitted during cross-examination that Rachelle Sumayaw was also a resident at her house and shared a room with complainant. Accused-appellant also claims that complainant was lying on cross-examination when she stated that she did not shout because she was afraid, because later on in her testimony she claimed that she fought and struggled against accused-appellant. Finally, accused-appellant argues that the two-year delay in the filing of the complaint from the time the alleged rape happened detracts from the veracity of the charge. After a careful review and examination of the records of the case, we find no compelling reason to reverse the assailed decision. The Court has repeatedly stressed the principle that findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies are accorded the highest degree of respect and generally will not be disturbed on appeal. As often explained by this Court, the trial court judge is in a better position to assess the truth or falsity of a witness' testimony because he is able to personally observe the demeanor of the witness and his manner of testifying. [9] This is especially true in rape cases where the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue. [10] As rape is a crime committed in secrecy, often without any other witness except the victim, the judge ultimately has to decide which between the testimony of the complainant and that of the accused is more credible. In the case at bar, the trial court judge prop