G.R. No. 200531 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RADBY ESTOYA Y MATEO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged herein and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. The accused is likewise directed to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS. [9] Aggrieved by the above decision, Estoya filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. The Office of the Solicitor General summarized the evidence for the prosecution in Plaintiff-Appellees Brief, to wit: During her school vacation in 2006 while her parents were in x x x, AAA stayed at the house of her maternal aunt, BBB, in x x x. Appellant Radby Estoya lives six (6) to seven (7) meters away from BBBs house. On April 5, 2006, around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, AAA was sleeping on her aunts bed when she was awakened because someone was on top of her. When she realized that it was appellant, she attempted to shout but her resistance was subdued by his threat that he will stab her with a knife. She realized that appellant had undressed her and suddenly felt appellants penis entering her vagina. Due to fear, the two (2) nephews of AAA and her brother CCC, hurriedly ran out of the house to report AAAs ordeal to DDD, a neighbor. After satisfying his lust, appellant ran away and climbed to the roof of the house. However, he immediately returned to the room and taunted AAA to report to the police if she can prove that rape was committed. Then appellant left. Soon after, CCC and DDD arrived and saw AAA crying on the bed. DDD accompanied AAA to the police station to report the incident and later, accompanied her to the doctor for physical examination. The medical examination yielded the following result: a shallow fresh laceration at 6:00 oclock position and clear evidence of penetrating trauma to the hymen. [10] (Citations omitted.) Estoya very briefly stated his defense in his Accused-Appellants Brief, thus: Accused Radby Estoya , x x x, a 22-year old resident of Sweden Street, Harmony 1, San Jose Del Monte City, denied the imputation against him. In truth, he was cleaning his house with his nephews and nieces. Although he knew the private complainant, he was not close to her as she was, at that time, a plain acquaintance and neighbor. [11] In its Decision dated April 28, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed Estoyas conviction by the RTC, but modified the damages awarded to AAA. The appellate court decreed: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is DENIED . The assailed February 26, 2010 Decision is however MODIFIED by reducing the award of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and granting on the other hand the awards of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. [12] Hence, Estoya comes before us through the instant appeal with the same lone assignment of error which he raised before the Court of Appeals: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUI