G.R. NO. 171314 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. PATERNO OLIQUINO, ACCUSED-. - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing considerations, this Court (finds) the accused PATERNO P. OLIQUINO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and sentences him to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the victim AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. Considering that accused Paterno Oliquino admits that he is the father of CCC [33] which is the product of the rape committed by him upon private complainant AAA(,) he is ordered to acknowledge the child CCC as his daughter and to give her the necessary support. [34] Appellant seasonably appealed his case before this Court. In our Resolution dated 29 September 2004, we transferred the case to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our holding in the case of People v. Mateo . [35] The Court of Appeals affirmed, with modification, the findings of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision states: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the decision subject of the appeal is hereby AFFIRMED save for a slight modification in that the accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim an additional amount of the P50,000 as civil indemnity. [36] Once again, appellant is pleading his case before us arguing that the prosecution was unable to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [37] Appellant maintains that AAA's account of what transpired during that fateful day "is not in accord with human experience and does not carry with it the essence of truth" [38] and should not have been given full evidentiary weight and credence. He also argues that his testimony as well as those of his witnesses were consistent and reliable as compared to the version presented by the prosecution. [39] Thus, while alibi is an inherently weak defense, the same gains significance and strength when it is corroborated by a credible witness. In this case, he insists that the prosecution was not able to discredit the witnesses he presented before the trial court. Lastly, appellant points to the period of time that had lapsed before AAA instituted the criminal case against him. This fact, he argues, gives rise to the assumption that the filing of the rape charge was a mere afterthought so that AAA and BBB could extract some money from him. [40] Appellant's arguments fail to convince. As with other rape cases, the outcome of the present action boils down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. In this regard, it has been this Court's consistent stance that the trial court's evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses are accorded highest respect as it had the singular opportunity to observe the witnesses and to gauge their truthfulness. Appellate courts do not have the same privilege for, in deciding cases, they are confronted with mere cold transcripts of the testimonies given before the trial court. Thus, it is settled that- The question of whether or not the sexual intercourse in question is free and voluntary, hinges, on the credibility of witnesses, the determination of whi