G.R. No. 181202 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -, VS. EDGAR PADIGOS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the court finds accused, EDGAR PADIGOS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE in relation to R.A. 7 [61] 0 and, considering the aggravating qualifying circumstance of relationship to and minority of the victim, imposes upon him the supreme penalty of DEATH by lethal injection. Accused is, likewise, sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TWELVE (12) YEARS of PRISION MAYOR for the ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS he committed and found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt. In addition, Accused is ordered to pay the victim, [AAA], the following amounts: 1.) P50,000.00, as damages ex delito ; 2.) P50,000.00, as moral damages; 3.) P25,000.00, as exemplary damages; The Department of Social Welfare and Development, Region VII, Cebu City is ordered to take custody of the minor, [AAA], for her to undergo rehabilitation. [8] Hoping for a reversal of his conviction, appellant elevated his case to the Court of Appeals which denied his appeal and affirmed with modification the trial court judgment in a Decision dated July 20, 2007, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE , the appealed Decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED with modification as to the penalty. Accused-appellant is found guilty of the crimes of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act 7610 and is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the first crime and to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty (2 [0] ) days as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as maximum of reclusion temporal. The award of civil damages is retained. [9] (Italicization added.) Hence, appellant now seeks redress with this Court through the present appeal wherein he merely adopted the Appellants Brief he submitted to the Court of Appeals in lieu of submitting a Supplemental Brief as permitted by this Court. In this appeal, appellant puts forward a single assignment of error, to wit: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED AGAINST HIM DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [10] In his appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court should not have given full credence and weight to the testimony of AAA because she allegedly failed to give a straightforward and consistent narration of the events surrounding the incidents at issue. Appellant maintains that AAAs testimony is not worthy of belief because it allegedly lacked details as to how the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness were actually committed. We are not persuaded. Appellants appeal is hinged principally on the credibility of the victims testimony. Appellant insists that AAAs testimony is not credible enough to warrant appellants conviction of the two felonies attributed to him. In the recent case of People v. Bosi, [11] we reiterated a long held principle that when the credibility of the victim is at issue, the Court gives great weight