Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
We affirm the trial court's finding that the appellant is guilty of rape on three counts.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds accused Rolando Tabanggay guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Rape (3 counts) with the qualifying circumstance in all these cases that the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent and hereby sentences him to suffer THREE DEATH PENALTIES, together with the accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify the victim Rynalyn Tabanggay [in] the amount of P50,000.00 in Criminal Case No. C-4775 and Genalyn Tabanggay the total amount of P100,000.00 in Criminal Cases Nos. C-4776 and C-4777, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. "For services rendered as counsel de oficio , Atty. Rodrigo C. Dimayacyac is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of P1,500.00, subject to availability of funds." Issue In his appeal [8] before us, accused-appellant assigns this single error: [9] "The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of rape on three (3) counts." The Court's Ruling We affirm the trial court's finding that the appellant is guilty of rape on three counts. However, we reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua, because of the failure to prove sufficiently the minority of the private complainants. Main Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence Appellant first argues that the testimony of Rynalyn did not establish with moral certainty that he had indeed raped her. She did not present any corroborating testimony despite her allegation that she was lying side by side with her companions when the incident took place. Besides, it remains unrebutted that Rynalyn had previously been sexually molested by her uncle for a monetary consideration. Furthermore, her examining physician was not presented to give an expert opinion on whether she had been truly raped on the date and at the time in question. [10] With respect to Genalyn's testimony, appellant contends that the same was impressed with uncertainties. It was supposedly inconceivable that she was raped while lying side by side with several companions. Moreover, she was silent when her mother confronted her as to the truth of the rape incidents. [11] Appellant further insists that private complainants and their mother were ill-motivated in filing the rape cases against him. There was allegedly bad blood between them because of his failure to give sufficient provision to his family. The averments of appellant really boil down to the sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution and the credibility of its witnesses to support his conviction on three counts of rape. The settled guiding principles in prosecutions for rape are: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent; (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 ow