G.R. No. 177822 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of the prosecution more than sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 43,381-99 and in Criminal Case No. 43,382-99 above-mentioned pursuant to Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659, without any aggravating circumstance attendant in the commission of the offense charged, in the two (2) above-informations, accused, HILARIO OPONG Y TAÑESA, is sentenced to suffer a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, in each of the above- Criminal Case No. 43,381-99 and Criminal Case No. 43,382-99, together with all accessory penalty as provided for by law. Moreover, pursuant to Art. 100 in relation to Art. 104 of the Revised Penal Code, governing civil indemnity, above-accused, is furthermore ordered to pay complainant, AAA the amount of P50,000.00 in each of the two (2) counts of rape or a total amount of P100,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, another amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages or a total amount of P100,000.00; still another amount of P50,000.00 or a total amount of P100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages, to give example to the public as a deterrent in the further commission of said abominable and despicable offenses. [21] On 11 August 2000, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC stating that he would appeal his conviction to this Court. [22] On 14 August 2000, the RTC issued an Order forwarding the records of the instant case to us for review. [23] On 9 March 2005, we issued a Resolution [24] remanding the present case to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo . [25] On 25 October 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the Decision of the RTC. Thus: Appellant has not shown that departure from the findings of facts of the trial court is proper. WHEREFORE, the Joint Judgment of the trial court is affirmed in toto . [26] Before us, appellant assigns the following errors: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S CLAIM THAT SHE WAS RAPED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CHARGE WAS BELIED BY THE RESULT OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED. III. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, THE CRIME HE COMMITTED WAS ONLY ATTEMPTED RAPE. [27] In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three principles, to wit: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [