G.R. No. 142416 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FRANCISCO SORONGON ALIAS “TOTO”, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in conformity with all the foregoing and considering that the crime of rape was committed with the use of bladed weapon, and in order to serve the ends of justice, the Court is left with no other alternative but to impose upon the accused the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with the accessory penalties provided for by law and to indemnify the victim the amount of P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. Accused FRANCISCO SORONGON, being detained is entitled to full credit of the preventive imprisonment he had undergone provided he has signed his conformity to abide by the rules and regulations imposed upon inmates by the provincial jail authorities of Davao del Sur, otherwise he shall be entitled to only 4/5 of the preventive imprisonment he had undergone. Hence this appeal, raising the following errors: The trial court erred in believing private complainants allegation of rape contrary to what she reported at the Kapatagan Police Detachment that the accused merely attempted to rape her. The trial court erred in not finding that complainant lied when she testified that a sharp knife was used and pressed on her stomach contrary to what the medical certificate shows that there was no stomach injury and that her t-shirt showed no tear or perforation. The trial court erred in not finding that private complainant lied and her testimonies were incredible when she claimed that accused-appellant boxed her at the epigastric part of the stomach 30 to 35 times. The trial court erred in not believing that they were sweethearts. [4] In fine, accused-appellant assails the trial courts assessment of the credibility of AAA. Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician. Be that as it may, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature. [5] In his first assignment of error, accused-appellant noted that AAA testified in open court that she was raped whereas she claimed before the Kapatagaan police that accused-appellant only attempted to rape her. Hence, AAA did not present the PNP blotter book in evidence. On this score, we agree with the trial court when it held: The minor inconsistencies in the private complainants statements during the time she was investigated by the Barangay Captain of Kapatagan and at the time she was investigated by the police in Digos, Davao del Sur are quite understandable for a barrio lass who was there present to air the acts of the accused which are repugnant to her modesty. These inconsistencies pointed by the defense, however, were not made during the trial proper or during the time she was presented in Court but inconsist