G.R. No. 137649 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RODOLFO VILLADARES, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the court finds accused RODOLFO VILLADARES Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as charged in the Information and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and indemnify Eliza Sabanal the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos , as moral damages, and pay the costs of suit." [6] Hence, this appeal from the lower court's decision, with the sole assignment of error allegedly committed by and imputed to the court a quo : THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF ALLEGED VICTIM ELIZA SABANAL AND THE RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION OF HER GENITALS WHICH ARE WEAK EVIDENCE AND NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [7] Accused-appellant avers that the trial court erred in convicting him because the testimony of the victim, Eliza, is contradictory and filled with inconsistencies. He argues that Eliza testified that when accused-appellant had sexual congress with her, she struggled and tried to shout but he covered her mouth with his left hand, at the same time, he used his right hand to undress her. However, accused-appellant points out that she likewise testified at that juncture, that he was also poking a knife at her. According to accused-appellant, it is contrary to human experience and highly incredible for him to be covering her mouth, poking a knife at her and undressing her all at the same time. Next, accused-appellant relies on the inconsistencies between Eliza's testimony and that of Emma, her sister. He argues that Emma testified that Eliza shouted during the time of the incident in question, while Eliza declared that she could not shout because accused-appellant covered her mouth. Further, accused-appellant makes much of the alleged inconsistencies in the statement Emma executed before the police authorities and her testimony in court, citing the following: on direct examination, she testified that accused-appellant was completely naked when she was about to have sex with Eliza, but in her statement, she stated that accused-appellant was wearing shorts without briefs; and on cross-examination, she declared that the former inserted his penis into the latter's organ, but in her statement, she merely stated that accused-appellant went "on top" of Eliza. As to Emma's testimony in court, he draws attention to Emma's initial testimony that accused-appellant had sexual congress with the private complainant, but supposedly contradicted herself by saying she only saw accused-appellant on January 20, 1996, when the latter was boarding a jeepney. We are not persuaded. A close and detailed examination of the entire record of the case at bar impels us to affirm. First. Accused-appellant's arguments as summarized above involve basically a question of credibility. It is doctrinal that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded with highest respect because the trial court had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial exp