G.R. No. 186395 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ITO PINIC, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, this Court finds the accused ITO PINIC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 730-T defined and penalized under Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and hereby further ordered to pay the victim [AAA] the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages. xxx. [A]side from the moral damages and civil indemnity the latter which is automatically granted in rape cases, the accused should likewise be made to pay exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty Five (Php25,000.00) Pesos. The accused is hereby acquitted in [Criminal Case Nos.] 731-T and 732-T, his guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt. [31] Appellant elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on 31 January 2007. [32] On 6 May 2008, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision [33] in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02673 dismissing the appeal. Thus: In fine, this Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court which took extreme caution to scrutinize [AAA's] testimony. WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. [34] Appealed to this Court, we required the parties to simultaneously file their respective supplemental briefs. [35] Both manifested that they will no longer file supplemental pleadings. [36] Our Ruling We uphold the conviction of appellant in Criminal Case No. 730-T. A man commits rape by having carnal knowledge of a child under twelve (12) years of age even in the absence of any of the following circumstances: (a) through force, threat or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority. [37] In the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused, we 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. [38] Owing to the manner of the commission of rape, the sole testimony of the victim may be sufficient to convict the accused so long as the court finds the testimony "credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things." [39] More so, when the testimony is supported by the medico-legal findings of the examining physician. [40] I Invoking the three (3) well-entrenched principles that guide the court in the determination of the guilt of an accused, appellant maintains that the sole testimony of AAA should not be ma