G.R. NO. 173484 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. SIMEON SUYAT Y JOSE, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused, SIMEON SUYAT, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, he is hereby sentence to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to pay the victim, AAA, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs. [21] Accused-appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal. [22] On 24 May 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated the present assailed decision affirming in toto the ruling of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision states: WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant appeal is perforce dismissed. Accordingly, the assailed decision dated 17 November 2004 is hereby affirmed in toto. [23] On 6 June 2006, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeals. [24] In our Resolution of 6 September 2006, we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire. [25] Both the Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney's Office manifested that they were no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs. [26] Accused-appellant makes the following lone assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE. [27] In resolving rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (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) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [28] Accused-appellant argues that the testimony of AAA as to how she was raped was replete with incredible allegations which are "contrary to human nature and which raised doubts on the truthfulness of her account as to what really happened on that fateful day." Particularly, accused-appellant harps on the physical impossibility of accused-appellant being able to do three things simultaneously - poke a knife on AAA's side, cover her mouth with his other hand, and lower her panty. [29] Accused-appellant goes on to argue that while it is well-recognized that conclusions and findings of facts of the trial court are binding on this court, still, the rule accepts of an exception, which is, when the trial court ignored and overlooked facts and circumstance that could alter the result. [30] Also, accused-appellant faults the trial court and the Court of Appeals in not considering Pascual's testimony that AAA did not mention anything about her being raped by accused-appellant on 7 May 2003; instead, AAA merely complained about being yelled at by accused-appellant. [31] Finally, accused-appellant argues that the findings of the med