G.R. No. 131823 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ISAGANI PARAISO Y HUTALLA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Isagani Paraiso y Hutalla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with Homicide, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of death, with its accessory penalties under Art. 40 of the Revised Penal Code, and to pay the Heirs of the deceased AAA the following: (a) P150,000.00 for actual and moral damages; and (b) P50,000.00 indemnity for death, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Pursuant to Sec. 10 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, let the whole records of this case be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment. In his Brief, [7] accused-appellant makes a single assignment of error, as follows: The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. To support his plea for acquittal, appellant points to alleged flaws in the prosecution evidence: (1) the delay of the eyewitness in identifying the appellant as the culprit; (2) the eyewitness false statement during direct examination that appellant was his blood-relative while, in truth, they are only related by affinity; and (3) the improbability of the commission of such a crime in broad daylight and within hearing distance of neighboring houses. These circumstances, appellant avers, amount to a failure of the prosecution to meet the quantum of evidence required to overcome his innocence. As to the first alleged flaw, jurisprudence is replete with rulings that delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrator of the crime will not impair the credibility of the witness, if such delay is sufficiently explained. [8] It is not uncommon for witnesses to the commission of crimes to show reluctance in volunteering information thereon and getting involved in criminal investigations. [9] This is especially true when family members are the assailants. [10] In this case, the lone eyewitness, Benny Reoveros, is related by affinity to accused-appellant, the latters wife being the sister of Bennys mother. Appellant himself admitted that he was highly respected by the eyewitness [11] and knows no reason why the latter would testify against him. [12] Indeed, the defense showed no reason why Reoveros would falsely implicate Paraiso in a despicable and grave offense as rape with homicide. As the Solicitor General correctly cites, where there is no evidence and nothing indicates that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. [13] Absent a corrupt intent, Reoveros close relationship to and respect for appellant sufficiently explain his delay in identifying the latter as the wrongdoer. Nevertheless, the Court carefully examined the lengthy testimony of Benny Reoveros. We find the meat of his testimony, as to how the crime was committed and by whom, to be clear, positive a