G.R. No. 142749 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BERNARDO C. GAVINO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused BERNARDO C. GAVINO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the crime of RAPE as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659, Section 11 thereof and hereby imposes upon the accused Bernardo C. Gavino the penalty of DEATH; to pay the victim AAA civil indemnity in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND ( P 50,000.00) PESOS and the costs. [14] Hence, the automatic review of the case by this Court. Appellant contends that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that AAAs testimony is not worthy of credit. He opines that it is unbelievable for AAA to have experienced pain when she was last abused in March, 1995 considering her claim that appellant had been sexually molesting her since she was nine (9) years old. Appellant likewise insists that AAAs failure to report to her mother the continued assault on her virtue for six (6) years further detracts from her credibility. Appellants attempt to discredit AAA is unconvincing. First, AAAs testimony that she suffered pain when she was last molested by the appellant is not inconceivable. The evidence shows that on the last sexual assault, appellant hit AAA on the abdomen and kicked her back. He then lifted the weakened girl, dropped her on the wooden bed and ravished her. Clearly, the physical attack that preceded the molestation contributed to the pain of AAA. Second, the reluctance and delay of AAA in reporting the series of incestuous abuses she suffered for many years is not necessarily indicative of a fabricated charge. The delay is due to the pattern of fear instilled by the appellant on AAA. The sexual assaults were accompanied with death threats from appellant who exercised moral ascendancy over her. Neither do we agree with appellants contention that the trial court overlooked the nefarious motive of AAA in accusing him of rape. We adhere to the settled rule that the calibration of the credibility of a witness is best left to the discretion of the trial judge who was able to observe the demeanor of the witness while testifying. In giving more weight to AAAs testimony, the trial court found her testimony to be sincere and straightforward as she narrated in detail the manner by which she was ravished by the appellant. [15] The trial court also took note of AAAs agony as her testimony throughout the trial was punctuated by uncontrollable bursts of tears. [16] Moreover, her positive testimony of forcible defloration was corroborated by the results of the physical examination conducted on her. It is settled that the existence of lacerations, coupled with the victims testimony, are the best physical evidence of sexual abuse. [17] In contrast, we find the defense adduced by the appellant to be flimsy. First, it is unnatural for a naïve, barrio lass to accuse her father of such a grave, personal offense and expose herself and her family to social humiliation if it were not true. Second, the defens