G.R. No. 183093 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DIOSDADO TUBAT Y VERSOZA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the [c]ourt finds accused DIOSDADO TUBAT y VERSOZA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua [and] to pay the complainant the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, plus the costs of suit. [6] Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 18 September 2006. [7] On 30 January 2008, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision [8] in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02517 upholding the conviction of appellant. It reads, in part: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision dated June 30, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxx, xxx, in Criminal Case No. 31344-MN, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant DIOSDADO TUBAT is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the complainant in the amount of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, plus costs of suit. [9] On further appeal to this Court on the repeated ground that the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of rape, we required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs [10] but both manifested that they would no longer do so. [11] Our Ruling We affirm the appellant's conviction. In the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, courts are 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 accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [12] Inasmuch as only two persons are usually involved in rape cases, the settled rule is that the lone uncorroborated testimony of the offended victim, so long as the testimony is clear, positive, and probable, may prove the crime as charged. [13] In his attempt to destroy the credibility of the testimony of AAA, the appellant touched even the most trivial of the matters testified to. We are compelled to reiterate established jurisprudence on rape. The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and of their testimonies are accorded the highest respect Once again, we recite the time-honored principle that the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies deserve the highest respect absent a showing that the court would have ruled otherwise had it not overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied material facts or circumstances. [14] As none of the exceptions is present in this case, there is no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court thereon. The credibility of a rape victim is not diminished nor impaired by minor inconsistencies in her testimony AAA ini