G.R. No. 203041 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MOISES CAOILE, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit: In FC Case No. A-496, accused Moises Caoile is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) and Article 266-B of Republic Act No. 8353, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . In FC Case No. A-497, accused Moises Caoile is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) and Article 266-B of Republic Act No. 8353, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . The accused is further ordered to indemnify the private complainant the amounts of P50,000.00 for each count of rape as compensatory damages and P50,000.00 for each count of rape as moral damages. [10] Caoile elevated the RTC ruling to the Court of Appeals, claiming that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by attacking the credibility of AAA and the methods used to determine her mental state. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its Decision dated March 21, 2012, in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03957, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC decision. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Joint Decision dated May 6, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), First Judicial Region, Branch 32, Agoo, La Union, in Family Court Case Nos. A-496 and A-497, entitled People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Moises Caoile, Accused, finding appellant Moises Caoile guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape is AFFIRMED with modification in that aside from civil indemnity and moral damages, appellant Moises Caoile is ORDERED to indemnify [AAA] exemplary damages amounting to P30,000.00 for each count of rape. [11] (Citation omitted.) Issue Caoile is now before this Court, on appeal, [12] with the same lone assignment of error he posited before the Court of Appeals, [13] to wit: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF TWO COUNTS OF RAPE. [14] In essence, Caoile is attacking the credibility of AAA, and claims that she might not be a mental retardate at all, having been able to give categorical and straightforward answers during her testimony. Moreover, Caoile avers that it has not been shown that AAA underwent the proper clinical, laboratory, and psychometric tests to arrive at the conclusion that she fell within the range of mental retardation. Caoile argues that while it is true that his denial and sweetheart defenses are generally deemed weak and unavailing, his conviction should nevertheless be founded on the strength of the prosecutions evidence and not on the flaws of his defenses. [15] This Courts Ruling Caoile was tried and convicted of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. Said provisions