G.R. No. 169061 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROQUE ABELLANO, ACCUSED-.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused Roque Abellano is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against her own daughter xxx in June 1997, who was then thirteen (13) years old and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH and to pay xxx P75,000.00 as Indemnity. Costs against the accused. Initially, this case was brought to this Court for automatic review. However, on September 7, 2004, the Court transferred this case to the CA consistent with its ruling in People v. Mateo . [10] On June 10, 2005, the CA affirmed the trial court's decision dated April 23, 2001 with modification on the latter's award of damages, thus: WHEREFORE , the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED , with the MODIFICATION , as hereinabove indicated. Pursuant, however, to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Amended Rules to Govern Review of Death Penalty Cases , we refrain from entering judgment and, instead, forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire record to the Supreme Court for further review. Both the Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney's Office, counsel for the accused, reiterated the arguments in their respective briefs filed during the pendency of this case upon automatic review and prior to its transfer to the CA. Thereafter, the case was submitted for resolution. [11] In this appeal, the accused reiterates his assignment of errors before the appellate court, to wit: I THE COURT OF ORIGIN COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GIVING MUCH WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION. II THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT EXCULPATING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DUE TO THE INCONSISTENCIES AS TO THE EXACT AGE OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM. III THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN LEGASPI CITY (BRANCH 6) MADE A BLATANT ERROR IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT. IV THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN IMPOSING THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DISREGARDING PERTINENT JURISPRUDENCE. [12] We do not find cause to disturb the findings of both courts. At the outset, we point out that the case at bench disposes only of the rape committed in June 1997. In this regard, the trial court correctly ruled that AAA's steadfast and unequivocal testimony on the rape on her person by the accused cannot be overcome by the flimsy denial of the latter. The prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt the rape of AAA by the accused. In the review of rape cases, we continue to be guided by the following principles: (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 de