G.R. No. 221428 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RENATO GALUGA Y WAD-AS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused RENATO GALUGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole and to pay complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. [6] Accused-appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals denied accused-appellant's appeal. According to the appellate court, AAA's straightforward testimony satisfactorily established the elements of rape: AAA testified that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her by forcibly laying her down on the floor, inserting his penis into her vagina, and threatening to kill her if she made a sound, and that she tried to push accused-appellant away but did not succeed. AAA's positive testimony thus prevailed over accused-appellant's plain denial. The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed with modification the RTC Decision dated November 15, 2011 as follows: ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated November 15, 2011 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The awards of moral damages and civil indemnity are REDUCED from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00, each. The award of exemplary damages is INCREASED from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. [7] Hence, the present appeal. [8] Accused-appellant and plaintiff-appellee adopted their respective briefs before the Court of Appeals. [9] Accused-appellant reiterates the following assignment of errors on the part of the RTC, and subsequently also of the Court of Appeals: I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED ALTHOUGH HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES DESPITE THEIR PATENT INCONSISTENCIES. [10] Accused-appellant claims that the RTC gravely erred in giving credence to AAA's testimony despite numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in her testimony. He points out that the complainant claimed that there were a number of people in the park who saw them together at the time of the incident. Even the prosecution witnesses, Borja and Garlitos, narrated that they merely saw accused-appellant with AAA at the park. He additionally highlights AAA's failure to immediately inform her parents that she was raped by accused-appellant. We find no merit in accused-appellant's contentions; hence, his appeal must be denied, subject to modification as to the amount of damages as shall hereafter be discussed. In resolving this case, we refer to the time-tested principles in deciding rape cases, to wit: In the review of rape cases, we continue to be 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 person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view o