G.R. Nos. 140439-40 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FELIX HERMOSA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , accused FELIX HERMOSA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the heinous crime of RAPE, (2 counts) defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, and is hereby sentenced to TWO (2) DEATH penalties. Additionally , accused is ordered to indemnify AAA the amount of P50,000.00 for each count and to pay the cost. Let the complete record of this case, together with the transcript of the stenographic notes be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Sec. 10, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court. SO ORDERED . [17] In his Brief appellant states, as lone assigned error, that: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED AGAINST HIM DESPITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [18] At issue is the credibility of complainant's testimony. Appellant contends that his conviction is based principally on complainant's incredible version of her ordeal in his hands. Yet, it is admitted by the complainant that three men, other than appellant, were the ones who previously raped her. Complainant's sister, Geraldine , in a tearful testimony corroborated his denial. Well established is the rule that the credibility of the offended party's testimony is determinative of the outcome of rape cases for the reason that when an alleged victim of rape says that she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. [19] The ten-year-old victim, AAA, identified appellant, her own father, as her rapist not once but twice. She positively testified that the rapes occurred while she was staying in her father's house. Appellant denies the charges stating that the rapes could not have happened as AAA lived not with him in his house, but with Mrs. Gregorio where she was a stay-in helper of her teacher. In his Brief, his counsel asks rhetorically: "If the accused was really capable of raping his own flesh and blood, why didn't he rape Geraldine when it was the latter who lived and resided with him for a long time?" [20] We find appellant's contention to be without merit. As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), "the alleged fact that the victim did not live with her father during the time of the commission of the crime does not provide a blanket defense to shield the latter from the probability of having committed the act." [21] Granting arguendo that AAA was indeed already in the employ of her teacher, this does not negate the fact that on those two occasions when she claims to have been raped by her father, she in fact stayed at appellant's house. Appellant also contends that AAA's allegations of rape was a ploy for revenge instigated by Mrs. Gregorio, with whom appellant had an altercation. No elaboration is made by