G.R. No. 189293 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. VICENTE CANDELLADA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing consideration, and by the weight or quantum of evidence, the Court renders judgment as follows: For failure of the prosecution to establish the [g]uilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 118-07-2005, for attempted rape in relation with Republic Act No. 9262, acquits him thereof; In Criminal Case Nos. 159-07-2005, 160-07-2005, 161-07-2005, 162-07-2005, 163-07-2005, 164-07-2005, 165-07-2005, and 166-07-2005, pursuant to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, in relation with Republic Act No. 7[6]10, otherwise known as Anti-Child Abuse Law, finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged and committed against his minor daughter, [AAA], and sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH in each of the 8 counts thereof; Accused is order[ed] to pay moral damages to complainant of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 in each of the 8 cases of rape; The [Bureau of Jail Management and Penology] warden of Tubod, Lanao de Norte is ordered to deliver the living body of accused to the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila within 15 days from the promulgation of the decision. [37] The records of the eight rape cases were then forwarded to the Court of Appeals for appellate review. In his Brief, accused-appellant contended that the RTC erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of eight counts of rape. AAAs short and simple answers during her testimony were short of a mere allegation. Despite remembering the dates of the alleged crimes, AAA could not vividly describe how she was molested. AAA merely repeated that on all eight occasions, accused-appellant had intercourse with her by inserting his penis into her vagina. AAAs uniform manner of describing the alleged rapes created a strong suspicion that her testimony had been coached, rehearsed, or contrived. Accused-appellant also labeled AAAs testimony incredible because according to AAA, accused-appellant immediately inserted his penis into her vagina without even taking off their undergarments. Thus, accused-appellant argued that the presumption of innocence accorded to accused-appellant must prevail, for it could not be overcome by mere suspicion, conjecture, or probability. The standard has always been proof beyond reasonable doubt. [38] Plaintiff-appellee, for its part, maintained that the RTC judgment of conviction against accused-appellant was consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. However, it prayed that the sentence imposed upon accused-appellant be modified in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines. [39] In its Decision dated April 29, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction against accused-appellant but modified the sentence and award of damages: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING , the deci