G.R. No. 168628 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EMETERIO RICAMORA Y SUELLO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court finds the accused EMETERIO RICAMORA y SUELLO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of CONSUMMATED RAPE, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the offended party MARY ROSE ROCREO the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as compensatory damages and the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages and to pay the costs of the instant suit. The records of the case were originally transmitted to this Court for automatic review. Conformably, however, with People of the Philippines v. Efren Mateo y Garcia [19] which modified Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124, Section 3 of Rule 125 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and any other rule insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTCs to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua , or life imprisonment, the case cum records was, by Resolution of September 13, 2004, referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. The Court of Appeals, by the assailed Decision, affirmed in toto the trial court's decision. Hence, the present review, appellant assigning a single error: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE. Appellant's basic contention is that the court a quo erred in upholding the trial court's giving full faith and credence to the testimony of the private complainant. This Court has adopted an unrelenting position that when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally viewed as correct and entitled to great weight, it explaining as follows: In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. Having the opportunity to observe them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations ar