G.R. No. 139235 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. NATHANIEL SURIO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused Nathaniel Surio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay private complainant Claranette Ligon the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages. With costs. SO ORDERED . [24] By reason of the imposition of the penalty of death, the case is now for automatic review by this Court. Accused-appellant raised the following errors in his Brief: I THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED BASED ON THE INCREDULOUS AND INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES PARTICULARLY OF CLARANETTE LIGON II LIKEWISE THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF RAPE THEREBY IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE EXECUTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND HER MOTHER IN ARRIVING INTO A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED. [25] In every criminal prosecution, the guilt of the accused must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt in order to warrant a conviction. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. [26] It is not the absolute certainty of guilt but only a moral certainty as to the presence of the elements constituting the offense, as well as the identity of the offender. [27] This exacting standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court observed, acquires more relevance in rape because an accusation of rape is fairly easy to make but difficult to prove, and even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove. [28] Moreover, the lone testimony of the victim may be made the sole basis of a conviction for rape, if such testimony is clear, positive and credible. [29] The matter of the assessment and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, such as that of a victim in a rape case, is best left to the trial court. [30] The Court has consistently accorded with utmost respect the findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because it has the advantage of directly observing the demeanor and comportment of witnesses when they testify. However, when there is a showing that the trial court failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances that would have altered its conclusion, it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to correct such a mistake. [31] After a careful study of the case under scrutiny, the Court finds sufficient grounds to overrule the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court especially as to the credibility of complainants testimony. In her direct examination, complainant narrated the manner in which she was allegedly raped by accused-appellant on August 15, 1996 in