G.R. No. 199494 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -, VS. WELMO LINSIE Y BINEVIDEZ, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , this Court finds accused WELMO LINSIE Y BINEVIDEZ, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Rape under Art. 266-A, 1st paragraph in relation to Art. 266-B 2nd paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without the eligibility of Parole, which carries with it the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. Accused is likewise ordered to pay private complainant the amounts of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, as indemnity ex delicto, Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, Twenty[-]Five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages. [7] As can be expected, appellant appealed his conviction. On review, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment affirming the trial court ruling. The dispositive portion of the assailed April 13, 2011 Decision is reproduced below: WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the 27 January 2010 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City (Branch 195) in Criminal Case No. 06-005 finding accused-appellant Welmo Binevidez Linsie guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua , and directing him to indemnify private complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto , another P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is AFFIRMED . [8] Undaunted, appellant comes to the Court with the instant appeal contending in his Appellants Brief that: I THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BASED SOLELY ON THE INCREDIBLE AND UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT. [9] In his Supplemental Brief [10] filed before the Court, he reiterates that: (1) AAAs testimony was plagued with inconsistencies and variations and she was far from candid in her narration of the incident; (2) there was no proof that AAA tenaciously resisted appellants alleged bestial act and afterwards she showed no signs of disturbance or stress; and (3) appellant was able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to commit the alleged rape since his presence in his place of work at the time of the incident was corroborated by defense witness Allan Talinghale. To recall, the Information charged appellant with the felony of simple rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon, as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code. We quote the material portions of the statute here: Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committe