G.R. No. 187740 - PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, THE, VS. MANUEL CATACUTAN, TOLENTINO Y ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged herein and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. The accused is likewise directed to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS. [17] The trial court found the victims accusation of rape as credible and found appellant guilty. Appellant filed with the Court of Appeals a Notice of Appeal dated 19 September 2006. [18] On 28 November 2008, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan (Malolos, Branch 13) is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the award of [P]75,000.00 as civil indemnity is REDUCED to [P]50,000.00 and that accused-appellant is further ordered to pay to AAA the sum of [P]50,000.00 as moral damages. [19] Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 18 December 2008. [20] Both parties opted not to file Supplemental Briefs. [21] In his Brief, appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He questions the credibility of the victims testimony. Appellant alleges that the victims testimony is highly incredible [and] not in consonance with reason and common experience. [22] Appellant argues that based on AAAs testimony, no force was employed in undressing AAA. Appellant emphasizes that the knife he allegedly used to threaten AAA was never found nor offered in evidence. Moreover, appellant stresses that AAA did not offer any resistance to the alleged rape and she did not try to escape from accused when she had the opportunity to do so. Under these circumstances, appellant submits that it is evident that the alleged threats were only imagined by AAA. [23] In the prosecution of rape cases, conviction or acquittal depends on the credence to be accorded to the complainants testimony because of the fact that usually, the participants are the only eyewitnesses to the occurrences. Thus, the issue ultimately leads to credibility. [24] On this score, findings of fact of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal since conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape cases depends heavily on the sound judgment of the trial court which is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. [25] The factual findings of the RTC are further strengthened by the affirmation of the Court of Appeals. The legal adage that when a woman, especially a girl-child, says she had been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was really committed, finds yet another application in this case. [26] The rationale of this jurisprudential principle is that, no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by