G.R. No. 189324 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GILBERT PENILLA Y FRANCIA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused Gilbert Penilla y Francia of the crime of rape, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua . The said accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the complainant [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00, by way of civil liability ex-delicto. [6] On appeal likewise via Notice of Appeal before the appellate court, Penilla was adamant on his innocence. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTCs finding of guilt. Penilla now appeals to us assigning grave error in the Court of Appealss decision, thus: I THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE [TO] PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS TESTIMONY. II THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [7] The sole issue for our resolution is whether Penilla indeed raped AAA. As the lower courts were, we are likewise convinced that Penilla raped AAA. We proceed straight to determining the actual circumstances surrounding the sexual encounter between AAA and Penilla, as carnal knowledge of AAA is admitted by Penilla, only that it was alleged as consensual sex, and not rape. Rape case principles have not changed: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. [8] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue. [9] In this case, accused-appellant casts aspersions on AAAs credibility by portraying AAA as a morally loose woman, separated from her husband, living with another man, and hankering for the affection of a younger man. For good measure, Penilla contends that there is bad blood between AAA and his grandmother concerning money: AAA initially shouldered the expenses for the repairs on the room she was renting from Penillas grandmother with the understanding that the latter would deduct the expense from the monthly rentals. When Penillas grandmother collected payment for back rentals and transferred AAA to another room, AAA suddenly became disenchanted with Penilla, thus this concocted allegation of rape. The contentions of Penilla on the credibility of complainant refer only to peripheral and trivial matters; they do not touch on the issue of whether or not the crime of rape was in fact committed. [10] We emphasize that in rape cases the accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, c