G.R. NO. 166546 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, the accused Rogelio Arsayo is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for (sic) the crime of rape and he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua and all the accessory penalties attached thereto. He is further adjudged to pay the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and the amount of P75,000.00 as (sic) for moral damages with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The City Warden of Caloocan City is hereby ordered to bring the accused to the National Penitentiary in Muntinglupa City to serve his sentence crediting to his favor his service under preventive imprisonment. The City Warden is further ordered to file a manifestation of compliance of the order to bring the accused to Muntinglupa City. [17] In convicting appellant, the trial court did not accord credence to appellant's denial. It, however, did not impose the capital punishment on appellant because of the supposed failure of the information to contain the allegation that appellant is the stepfather of the victim. With a Notice of Appeal [18] filed by appellant, the trial court forwarded the entire records of the case to this Court. [19] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo, [20] the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. After reviewing the case, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the penalty increasing it to death with the explanation that the relationship ( i.e. , stepfather) of the appellant to the victim has been sufficiently alleged in the information. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the decision appealed from is hereby recommended to be MODIFIED in that the penalty is increased from reclusion perpetua to death. In accordance with Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, this case is hereby certified, and let the records thereof be elevated, to the Supreme Court. [21] In our Resolution [22] dated 12 April 2005, the parties were required to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice. Appellant manifested that he adopts the appellant's brief and reply brief that he had previously filed as his supplemental brief. On the part of the Office of the Solicitor General, despite notice, it did not file any supplemental brief. Appellant cites as errors the following: I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE HIGHLY INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT. II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the