G.R. No. 137696 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDDIE SERNADILLA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the court hereby finds the accused, Eddie V. Sernadilla, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No.7659 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection and to indemnify the victim April Joy L. Peroche the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs." [6] In accordance with Section 10, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, the case is now before us for automatic review. In his lone assignment of error, the accused-appellant contends that: "THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDDIE V. SERNADILLA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 335 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 7659." [7] In the appellant's brief, counsel for accused-appellant enumerates three reasons why accused-appellant should not be convicted of the crime of rape. First, he claims that the trial court gravely erred in its findings that the victim April Joy Peroche was very candid, spontaneous and consistent in her testimony. Second, he avers that the allegation that April Joy Peroche was raped by the herein accused in the presence of four (4) other children is repugnant to common experience and observation. And third, he argues that the trial court erred in convicting herein accused-appellant despite failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the actual date of the commission of the rape. After a meticulous review of the evidence in this case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The evidence clearly establishes the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. With respect to accused-appellant's first argument in his appellant's brief, we note the well-established rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at capriciously or that the trial court disregarded material facts which might affect the outcome of the case. [8] The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it is in a position to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses. [9] It is only the trial court which has the unique opportunity to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness's deportment on the witness stand while testifying, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts which usually rely on the silent records of the case [10] The Court has closely looked into the case and, like the trial court, it is convinced that the evidence presented by the prosecution satisfies the test of moral certainty required to convict the accused-appellant of the crime charged. The trial court is correct in giving credence to April Joy's testimony over that of accused-appellant. Her testimony was indeed candid, spontaneous and