G.R. No. 211028 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JONATHAN ARCILLO, ACCUSED-.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the aforegoing, this Court finds accused Jonathan Arcillo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the commission of RAPE and hereby sentences him to suffer the following penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA which carries an accessory penalty of civil interdiction for the duration of the period of the sentence and perpetual disqualification, lie is also liable to pay moral damages to the private complainant in the amount of Php75,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of Php25,000.00. [10] The RTC found that the positive assertion of AAA is more credible than the denial of appellant. The trial court also observed that appellant's alibi has two versions: first, that he was on the farm; and second, he was at the cemetery. The trial court noted that appellant failed to present his wife to corroborate his statement. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal but on 25 July 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling but modifying it as to damages, to wit: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is DENIED . The Decision dated February 16, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, Oslob, Cebu in Criminal Case No. OS-05-371 finding accused-appellant Jonathan Arcillo (" Arcillo ") guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape in relation to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS as to damages. Accused-appellant Jonathan Arcillo is ordered to pay victim AAA Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment. No costs. [11] The Court of Appeals found no reason to deviate from the prior assessment of the RTC on the credibility of AAA. According to the Court of Appeals, the testimony of AAA is supported by the physician's finding of penetration. The Court of Appeals convicted appellant of simple rape because the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not present when CCC admitted that appellant's wife is only his niece, thus, appellant cannot be AAA's uncle by affinity within the third civil degree. In his Brief, [12] appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He insists that the testimony of AAA is improbable and incredulous. According to appellant, AAA's claim that she was raped in an open field is impossible because many people pass by the area to gather feeds and would have seen them. Appellant claims that AAA's failure to shout for help is suspicious and her failure to immediately inform her grandfather of the alleged rape should render her story impossible. We dismiss the appeal. The RTC found AAA's testimony to be credible and noted that it was positive, direct and straightforward. The Court of Appeals agreed that AAA's testimony was straightforward and categorical. The determination by the trial court of the credibility of wi