G.R. No. 181081 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROLDAN ARCOSIBA ALIAS "ENTOY," ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, applying Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and the amendatory provisions of R.A. 8353, (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997), in relation to Section 11 of R.A. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law), the Court found accused, ROLDAN ARCOSIBA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE charged under the information and sentenced [him to] suffer the maximum penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay civil indemnity in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos and moral damages in the amount of Twenty[-]Five (P25,000.00) Thousand Pesos to the victim, [AAA]; and Pay the Cost. SO ORDERED . [15] On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling but modified the award of damages by including an award of exemplary damages. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the accused, ROLDAN ARCOSIBA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and [sentencing him to] suffer the maximum penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay civil indemnity in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, moral damages in the amount of Twenty[-]Five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos and pay the cost to [AAA] is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the private complainant is also entitled to the award of exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty[-]Five Thousand [P]esos (P25,000.00). SO ORDERED . [16] The case is now before us for final disposition. In his brief, appellant faults the trial court, to wit: I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE. II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. [17] Simply, the issue before us is whether appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In his brief, appellant assails the credibility of the victim. He claims that the victim's testimony is inconsistent. For the State, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, including that of the victim, are credible and worthy of faith and belief. We affirm appellant's conviction. This Court has held in the case of People v. Baligod [18] that rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in resolving rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration. If a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. To ensure that justice is meted out, extreme care and caution is required in weighing the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused. [19] During trial, AAA recalled the harrowing ordeal she had gone through as follows: PROSECUTOR MERIN: x x x x Q