G.R. No. 137164 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ALBERT NUBLA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered finding the accused Albert G. Nubla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against Romelita T. Martinez and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnity to the private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00, plus cost." [4] The convicted accused appealed the verdict. The defense counsel submitted an elaborate assignment of errors basically bewailing the sufficiency of the evidence given by the prosecution; thus: " First Assignment of Error: "The Honorable Trial Court seriously erred in concluding that `(t)he Court is convinced with moral certainty that accused took advantage of the complainant when she was not in control of her mental faculties' or when she was `unconscious' or `semi-conscious' (Page 12, second paragraph, and page 13, third paragraph, Decision dated November 26, 1998), despite the clear lack of MEDICAL and MATERIAL EVIDENCE to prove such allegation when the same could easily have been secured immediately after the alleged incident. " Second Assignment of Error: "The Honorable Trial Court seriously erred in finding and concluding that `(t)he accused found it necessary to use some form of violence'. (Page 12, second par., appealed Decision) " Third Assignment of Error: "The Honorable Trial Court seriously erred in convicting the accused despite the testimony of private complainant not being impeccable and true throughout. " Fourth Assignment of Error: "The Honorable Trial Court seriously erred in convicting the accused on the ground that the version of the prosecution is more credible than that of the defense. " Fifth Assignment of Error: "The Honorable Trial Court seriously erred in convicting the accused and adjudging him to pay the damages stated in the appealed Decision." [5] The Court affirms the conviction. By its very nature, the crime of rape is done in seclusion where, normally, it is only the participants who can testify on its occurrence. [6] A conviction or acquittal in cases of this nature depends almost entirely on the credibility of the testimony of the accuser and the accused. Like before, this Court is mindful of the accepted fact that an accusation for rape is easy to make, hard to prove but harder still for the party accused, although innocent, to disprove. And, as is also usually the case, the testimony of the complainant would be the only evidence available for the prosecution on how that offense is perpetrated. The complainant's plaint should thus be regarded with utmost caution, [7] and the party charged with the offense deserves the benefit of doubt unless the victim's testimony is truly convincing. In this particular instance, complainant Romelita Martinez could not testify on how the actual coitus took place at the apartelle. She was unconscious at the time. Her recollection of the s