G.R. Nos. 139959-60 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS Y ARSITE, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding accused Deogracias Burgos y Arsite guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Republic Act No. 8353 (amending the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 7659) in both Criminal Cases Nos. 19569 and 19570, judgment is hereby rendered imposing upon him the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each of these two cases. He is also to suffer the accessory penalty prescribed by law. Accused is further ordered to pay the private offended party Salvacion Pilapil civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00; plus moral damages of P30,000.00 for every case, or an aggregate of P60,000.00. Costs against him. Accused being detained by reason of these cases, the period of his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in his favor and deducted from the service of his sentence even if he is penalized with two (2) counts of reclusion perpetua (People vs. Corpuz, 231 SCRA 480), provided, he has agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners in accordance with the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. [15] Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant contends: THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN GIVING CREDIT TO THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT DESPITE ITS BEING CONTRARY TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR; THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER. We find these contentions to be without merit. In adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. [16] It has been held that the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. [17] In this case, Salvacion's testimony convinces us that accused-appellant raped her on March 10, 1998 and March 18, 1998. On direct examination, she stated: FISCAL YNGSON: Q: You said that you were not able to finish sweeping the floor because this Deogracias Burgos entered the room, will you please tell us what happened if any? A: Because he held me in my right hand. Q: After he held you in the right hand what did he do, if any? A: He pulled me going to our bed. Q: Was he able to pull you towards the bed. A: Yes, sir. Q: And what happened next, if any? A: After that he put himself on top of me and covered my mouth so that I could not shout. Q: Which of his hand covered your mouth, the left or the right hand of the accused? A: Left hand. Q: Why, what about his