G.R. No. 199210 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RICARDO M. VIDAÑA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, this court sentences him to reclusion perpetua and to pay [AAA] P50,000 in moral damages. [9] Insisting on his innocence, appellant appealed the guilty verdict to the Court of Appeals but was foiled when the appellate court affirmed the lower court ruling in the now assailed March 18, 2011 Decision, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Decision dated 26 June 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33, in Criminal Case No. 2163-G, finding the accused-appellant RICARDO M. VIDAÑA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt is hereby AFFIRMED in toto . [10] Hence, appellant takes the present appeal and puts forward a single assignment of error: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 IN RELATION TO SECTION 31 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610. [11] Appellant vehemently denies his eldest childs (AAAs) allegation of rape by asseverating that he could not have raped AAA because, on the date when the alleged rape took place, she was living in Francisco and Zenny Joaquins house and not in his residence where the alleged rape was consummated. This assertion was corroborated on material points by appellants son, EEE. Furthermore, appellant insists that the credibility of AAA is suspect since her narration of the alleged rape incident does not indicate that she resisted appellants carnal desires. We find no merit in appellants contention. Not unlike most rape cases, appellant hinges his hopes for freedom on undermining the credibility of AAAs testimony. Since AAA is the only witness that can connect appellant to the crime, appellant beseeches this Court to take a closer look at AAAs testimony and, at the end of which, render a judgment of acquittal. It is jurisprudentially settled that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. [12] Furthermore, it is likewise settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight and respect, if not conclusiveness, since the trial court was in the best position as the original trier of the facts in whose direct presence and under whose keen observation the witnesses rendered their respective versions of the events that made up the occurrences constituting the ingredients of the offense charged. [13] A careful review of the evidence and testimony brought to light in this case does not lead to a conclusion that the trial court and the Court of Appeals were mistaken in their assessment of the credibility of AAAs testimony. Absent any demonstration by appellant that both tribunals overlooked a material fact that otherwise would change the outcome of the case or misunderstood a circumstance of consequence in thei