G.R. No. 174370 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. WILLY MARDO GANOY Y MAMAYABAY. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused WILLY MARDO GANOY y MAMAYABAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt and as principal of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . Further, the accused is sentenced to pay complainant [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Finally, the accused is sentenced to pay the costs of suit. [17] (Underscoring in the original) This Court to which appellant appealed [18] referred the case to the Court of Appeals by Resolution of June 8, 2005 [19] following People v. Mateo. [20] By Decision of June 30, 2006, [21] the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision with modification. Thus it disposed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court a quo's Decision dated 08 August 2003 is perforce AFFIRMED , with the MODIFICATION that aside from the moral damages awarded to the victim, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 be likewise awarded in line with the ruling in People v. Calisao, 372 SCRA 25. [22] (Emphasis and italics in the original) In his Supplemental Brief [23] filed before this Court, appellant, describing the testimony of AAA as not "clear, convincing and free from material contradictions," argues that his guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and that his sweetheart defense should not have been brushed aside as it is credible and corroborated by two witnesses. The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses in rape cases is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion deserves much weight and respect because he/she has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. [24] In brushing aside the defense of appellant, the appellate court held: It is an undisputed fact that on the fateful day of 28 March 2002, [AAA] was only 17 years old. Mathematically speaking, if we were made to believe accused-appellant Ganoy's claim that he and [AAA] were sweethearts in 1998, she was only barely thirteen at that time. As to when, where and under what circumstances they came to know each other, were not established by sufficient and competent evidence. In fact, in 2001 [AAA] was still studying at the Doña Remedios Trinidad High School in Angat, Bulacan. She was, therefore, far from Valenzuela and she had not yet met accused-appellant Ganoy until 2001 when she had already stopped schooling. ( TSN, pp. 4-5, June 17, 2002 ). Settled is the rule that allegations are not synonymous to proofs. In the same breath, the accused-appellant Ganoy's claim that on the occasion of the alleged rape, [AAA] was asking money from him to defray the hospitalization bill she incurred a day before due to an abortion, is simply preposterous. It would be the height of absurdity, if the same was true, that [AAA] would be able to