G.R. No. 185716 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused: (a) In Criminal Case No. 452-M-2001, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape punished under the provisions of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua ; and (b) In Criminal Case No. 453-M-2001, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape punished under the provisions of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, 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 P75,000.00 for each count (total amount P150,000.00). XXX The penalty imposed in the two criminal cases being reclusion perpetua , the case was immediately brought to the Court of Appeals on automatic review, in view of this Court's ruling in People v. Mateo . [9] Insisting on his innocence, accused-appellant questioned the RTC decision before the Court of Appeals on the ground of reasonable doubt, with the apparent inconsistencies in private complainant's testimony as well as the impossibility of committing the rape in their small quarters where the rest of the family members were. However, upon review and seeing no sufficient basis to overturn the findings of the lower court, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision [10] which affirmed the findings and conclusions of the trial court with modification pertaining to the award of moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, which was not initially granted by the trial court. Adopting the factual findings of the RTC, the Court of Appeals resolved the case in this wise: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed September 4, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 13, in Crim. Case Nos. 452-M-2001 and 453-M-2001, is hereby MODIFIED in that moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 is hereby awarded, but the rest of the decision is hereby AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15, 2004, this judgment of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal and filed with the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals. [11] Undaunted, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal [12] with this Court within the reglementary period. The prosecution and defense were ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty (30) days from notice. [13] The prosecution opted to adopt its brief submitted before the Court of Appeals, whereas the defense proceeded with the filing of its supplemental brief. [14] Raising the same assignment of errors submitted in issue before the Court of Appeals, accused-appellant points out a lone assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S GUILT WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Accused-appellant imp