G.R. No. 147855 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CONDE RAPISORA Y ESTRADA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds the accused CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Accused is further ordered to pay the complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. [20] The Present Appeal In his appeal brief, Rapisora, now the appellant, assails the judgment of the trial court alleging that: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT [THE] COMPLAINING WITNESS HAD CLOSE ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE ACCUSED BEFORE JUNE 5, 1997, AND HAD AGREED TO MEET ON SAID DATE; II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT [THE] COMPLAINING WITNESS WENT ALONG VOLUNTARILY (sic) WITH [THE] ACCUSED FOR A DATE AT FILIPINAS WALK-IN MOTEL ON JUNE 5, 1997; III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT [THE] COMPLAINING WITNESS HAD SEX VOLUNTARILY (SIC) WITH [THE] ACCUSED ON JUNE 5, 1997 AT THE SAID MOTEL; IV THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING [THE] COMPLAINING WITNESS AS AN INNOCENT ANGEL, SO TO SPEAK, AND IN GIVING CREDENCE TO HER TESTIMONY; AND V THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED ON THE BASIS OF HIS DEFENSE AND ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT. [21] Underlying the foregoing issues is the credibility of the victim, Helen, as the prosecutions principal witness. Thus, in assailing his conviction, the appellant impugns her credibility. According to the appellant, Helens version of what transpired on June 5, 1997 taxes credulity. It is allegedly difficult to believe that, as Helen had testified, she and the appellant just coincidentally met each other in Martinez Street in Mandaluyong. Rather, the appellant insists that he and Helen had previous close acquaintance and that they agreed to meet each other on the said place and time. And with nary a sign of struggle, she boarded the taxi with him as they proceeded to the motel. The appellant capitalizes on purported inconsistencies between Helens sworn statement and her testimony in court. She testified that the appellant was waving a white towel when he approached her. However, Helen omitted to mention this in her sworn statement. Neither was it mentioned therein that the appellant pointed a knife at her on board the taxi. But in her testimony, Helen averred that, at knifepoint during the taxi ride, the appellant warned her uttering, huwag kang magkamaling sumigaw, huwag kang maingay. The appellant, likewise, harps on Dr. Soreta-Umils statement that Helen told her that the appellant befriended her (Helen) and later on brought her to a motel. Such revelation allegedly negates Helens claim that he forced her to come along with him to the motel. Further, Dr. Soreta-Umils finding that there was no laceration in Helens genitalia debunks her assertion that he had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Given these alleged flaws in the prosecutions evidence, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in not acquitting