G.R. No. 212157 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RODRIGO RUSCO, ACCUSED-.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the court hereby finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in the charges alleged in Crim. Case No. 00-1453 [11] and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua , together with the accessory penalty provided by law, pay the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. The accused period of detention shall be credited fully from the sentence herein imposed. On reasonable doubt, the accused is acquitted of the charges in Crim. Cases No. 00-1454 and 00-1453. [12] The trial court gave credit to AAA's testimony regarding the first rape incident while it found incredible her version of the second and third rape incidents. Appellant elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. On 29 August 2013, the appellate court affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the ruling as to the penalties imposed. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE , the appeal is DENIED . The assailed Decision dated May 6, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66 of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo in Criminal Case No. 00-1455 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION to include P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages awarded by the lower court, with an interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid. [13] The appellate court ruled that the following circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution led to the conclusion that appellant raped AAA: While AAA was grazing her brother's cow, appellant was in the vicinity. When AAA was passing by, appellant suddenly boxed her on the chest. The force generated from the punch rendered AAA unconscious. When she regained consciousness, AAA observed that her shorts and panty were already removed. She also noticed appellant pointing a knife at her and threatened her not to tell anybody especially her brother. She felt pain in her vagina. [14] The appellate court dismissed the inconsistencies in AAA's testimonies in the direct and cross-examinations as minor and trivial. Aggrieved, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. In a Resolution [15] dated 9 July 2014, this Court required the parties to file their respective Supplemental Briefs. In their respective Manifestations, [16] the parties manifested that they would no longer submit a supplemental brief. In his brief, [17] appellant argues that with respect to the 23 July 2000 incident, the prosecution failed to prove the element of sexual congress because AAA did not know who raped her and she failed to narrate in detail how the rape was consummated. Appellant claims that the trial court merely relied on AAA's statement that she felt pain in her vagina to establish the commission of rape. Moreover, appellant avers that the medical examination failed to corroborate the crime of rape. Appellant denies possessing a knife during the rape incident. He a