G.R. No. 188855 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RUEL TAMANO Y PASIA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court finds the Accused DANNY ALCANICES y Cueto guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 12409 [37] and [appellant] RUEL TAMANO y Pasia guilty beyond reasonable, as principal, of the crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 124010 [38] defined and penalized under the provisions of Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance appreciated, hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua . Further, [accused DANNY ALCANICES y Cueto] and [appellant RUEL TAMANO y Pasia] are ordered to pay the offended party the sum [of] FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, each, as civil indemnity. x x x x. [39] [Emphasis supplied]. Appellant and Danny Alcanices appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals via Notice of Appeal. For failure, however, of Danny Alcanices to file an Appellant's Brief within the period provided for by Section 1(e), [40] Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, his appeal was abandoned and consequently dismissed per Minute Resolution [41] dated 17 December 2008. Thus, only appellant's appeal was deliberated on for resolution. In his brief, appellant's lone assignment of error was: the trial court gravely erred in finding [appellant] guilty of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt . [42] In its Decision dated 19 February 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court's Consolidated Decision dated 18 March 2005, and disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the present appeal is DENIED . The assailed [Consolidated] Decision dated [18 March 2005], rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Batangas City in Crim. Case Nos. 12409 and 12410 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant Ruel Tamano is further ordered to pay AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, in addition to the amount of P50,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the RTC. [43] Disgruntled, appellant appealed the aforesaid Decision to this Court asserting that the prosecution miserably failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. He claims that AAA's story of defloration was merely concocted for she was only prodded by her mother and cousin to testify in court. Thus, the credibility of such testimony was highly questionable. In the same way, appellant contends that even the result of the medico-legal examination of AAA cannot be relied upon as evidence that she was raped. For even the medico-legal officer herself who examined AAA revealed that the kind of hymenal lacerations sustained by AAA could have also been caused by riding a bicycle or a horse. Appellant, thus, holds that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape. Appellant's contentions fail to persuade us. Noticeably, the arguments posited by the