VS. MAXIMO SALVADOR.

Ruling

Wherefore, accused Maximo Salvador Is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of death, to indemnify Merlyn Salvador the sum of P 75,000, to pay her moral damages of P 50,000 and to pay the costs. [5] Appellant avers that the prosecution failed to rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence. He claims that the victims testimony on the rape incident was incredulous because it defied the ordinary experience of man. [6] As such, the defects In the testimony should work towards his acquittal. [7] He also adds that the medical examination did not help the victims cause in any way, not having conclusively shown that the old healed laceration in the vagina was caused by penile penetration. [8] Thus, he assigns the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court: I THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II GRANTING THAT ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH INASMUCH AS THE RAPE IN THIS CASE IS NOT QUALIFIED BY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE SAID PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED. [9] The contentions of appellant are not meritorious. Appellant cannot hide behind the constitutional presumption of innocence when, as in this case, his guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled principles enunciated in a long history of jurisprudence work against him. These, together with the evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial, affirm his conviction. In reviewing rape cases, this Court has three guiding principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where 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 merit; the prosecution cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [10] Corollary to these is the principle that when a victim of rape says that she was defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. [11] This is a basic rule, founded on reason and experience [12] and becomes even more apparent when the victim is a minor. [13] In fact, more compelling is the application of this doctrine when the culprit is her close relative. [14] After meticulously perusing the records and evaluating the evidence, the Court is convinced beyond doubt of the credibility and the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence establishing that appellant raped his own daughter. The testimony of the victim is replete with details. She was positive, clear and convincing during the direct exami