Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby sentences accused Rolando Leonor y Andante to suffer the penalty of death, to pay the private complainants the sums of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. [35] The trial court gave probative value to the “unshaken, unflawed and consistent” [36] testimony of Lovely Faith that she was raped by her father.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby sentences accused Rolando Leonor y Andante to suffer the penalty of death, to pay the private complainants the sums of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. [35] The trial court gave probative value to the unshaken, unflawed and consistent [36] testimony of Lovely Faith that she was raped by her father. The trial court disbelieved the appellants claim that Lovely Faith was coached by her mother, Emily, whom he allegedly caught in an uncompromising situation with her own stepfather. It also found that the appellants defense of denial was weak and could not prevail over the positive assertions of Lovely Faith, especially since the latters testimony was corroborated by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Jaime Barron. The appellant assails the decision of the trial court contending that the crime lodged against him was a concoction of his wife and mother-in-law to cover up the illicit relationship between his wife, Emily, and her stepfather, Romy Pabelando. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for its part, asserts that the trial court correctly found that Lovely Faith, a six-year-old naive girl, lacked ill-motive to testify falsely against her own father. It also contends that the appellants defenses of alibi and denial are weak and cannot prevail over the positive, straightforward and sincere testimony of Lovely Faith. However, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the trial court erred in awarding only P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the victim and asserts that the amount should be increased to P75,000.00. The Courts Ruling The appellants contentions have no merit. At the outset, we reiterate the well-constructed rule that in reviewing rape cases, the appellate 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) due to the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (c) 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 for the defense. [37] Consequently, it is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its case with clarity and persuasion to the end that conviction becomes the only logical conclusion. [38] The legal aphorism is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration and assessment of the testimonial evidence of the witnesses, and its conclusion based on its findings, are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect. [39] This is so because the trial judge, having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, is in a better position to determine their credibility. [40] An exception to this rule is when t