G.R. No. 182791 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA,[1] ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Prosecution having proved the guilt of the accused, ELISTER BASMAYOR y GRASCILIA IN Criminal Case No. 122128-H, of the crime of Simple Rape, he is hereby sentenced to undergo an imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused is further ordered to pay the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 for moral damages without need of proof. Meantime, Criminal Case No. 122127-H is DISMISSED, for insufficiency of evidence. [22] The trial court was convinced that appellant, indeed, raped AAA not twice, but only once. Due to AAA's conflicting testimonies as to the number of times she was raped and whether her mother was present when she was allegedly raped on 9 November 2001, the trial court was compelled to dismiss Criminal Case No. 122127-H. However, as to the second rape committed on 12 November 2001, the trial court was persuaded that it happened and that appellant was the culprit. It accorded full credence to AAA's testimony as to what happened on the fateful morning of 12 November 2001. The victim identified appellant as the one who violated her honor. Her testimony was further supported by the findings of the Dr. Carpio who, upon genital examination, found fresh lacerations in her hymen at the 3:00 o'clock and 6:00 o'clock positions. Consistent with his findings, Dr. Carpio concluded that AAA had lost her virginity and that the lacerations, which were about three days old, were possibly caused by the rape committed on 12 November 2001. The trial court found that appellant's defense of bare denial was self-serving and could not prevail over the positive, spontaneous and straightforward declarations and identification made by the credible victim. It likewise found appellant's claim that AAA was instigated by her relative to be too flimsy a motive for one to file a serious charge of rape against him. It added that there being no showing of improper motive on AAA's part to falsely testify against the appellant, it concluded that no such improper motive existed and that her testimony was worthy of belief. The trial court convicted appellant only of simple rape, because the prosecution failed to establish that appellant was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother. It said that the prosecution failed to show that BBB and CCC were one and the same person. On 15 April 2005, appellant filed his Notice of Appeal manifesting his intention to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. [23] In an Order dated 18 April 2005, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. [24] On 21 December 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction, but modified the decision of the trial court by finding him guilty of Qualified Rape, increasing the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000.00 each, and awarding exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 1 April 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 261,