G.R. Nos. 146352-56 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BENIGNO

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused BENIGNO ELONA y BAUTISTA Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt as PRINCIPAL of CONSUMMATED RAPE under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by the Death Penalty Law under and in all the five (5) informations for rape and considering the presence of two (2) aggravating circumstances of dwelling and grave abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness without any mitigating circumstances to offset the same, hereby sentences the accused to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH for five (5) times and to pay the private offended party Rhodora Elona the following sums to wit: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in each case or a total of P250,000.00 in the five (5) cases; P50,000.00 as moral damages in each case or a total of P250,000.00 in the five (5) cases or a grand total of P500,000.00. The accused is further ordered to pay the costs of the instant five (5) cases. The knife (Exh. D) which is a deadly weapon used in the commission of the foregoing offenses is hereby forfeited in favor of the government. [6] Hence, this appeal with the following assignment of errors: I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH ON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE FIVE (5) INFORMATIONS MERELY CHARGED HIM FOR THE CRIMES OF SIMPLE RAPE. The appeal is partially meritorious. The accused acknowledges that the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded the highest respect, but notes that appellate courts are not precluded from scrutinizing the evidence to ascertain whether a fact or circumstance has been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court. [7] The accused points out several circumstances that, according to him, impair Rhodoras credibility, but the trial court failed to appreciate them. First, Rhodoras testimony is not believable as she said that the accused allegedly poked a knife at her neck, but at the same time removed his short pants and brief with both hands. [8] There is nothing incredible about Rhodoras statement because as correctly interpreted by the appellee, a perusal of her testimony would show that what Rhodora meant was that, while the accused was removing his brief and short pants with both hands, he was holding the same knife that he earlier used to poke the victims neck. The testimony of the victim is as follows: Q: By the way, when your father-in-law was removing his short pants and brief, what was he holding, if any? A: The knife which he was poking on (sic) my neck, Your Honor. Q: You mean to tell us that he was holding the knife and at the same time, removing his short pants and brief? A: He was holding the knife with his left hand while removing his brief and short pants by both his h