G.R. No. 138987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, ACCUSED-.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court, finding the accused, Rodolfo Rodriguez, guilty of raping his minor daughter Mary Ann Rodriguez beyond the shadow of doubt, hereby sentences him to suffer the extreme penalty of death in accord with the provisions of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. He is also directed to indemnify his daughter the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the cost." [12] Hence this automatic review with the following assignment of errors: "I. The honorable lower court erred in convicting the accused-appellant under the provisions of R.A. (No.) 7659 notwithstanding that paternity is not alleged in the information. II. The honorable lower court erred in finding the complainant honest, frank, clear and convincing as to give no reason to doubt her honesty and sincerity. III. The honorable lower court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond the shadow of doubt for the crime charged." [13] The appeal is partially meritorious. In assailing the decision of the lower court, the accused attempts to puncture the credibility of private complainant Mary Ann Rodriguez. He cites several inconsistencies in the latter's testimony which, according to him, casts doubt on its veracity. First, Mary Ann stated in her direct examination that when she woke up, she saw her father tying her right leg. On cross-examination, however, she said that she woke up with her father still tying her right hand, and not her leg. [14] Second, she testified that she was awakened when her father took off her bra and she even asked him, "Why are you doing that to me?" [15] On cross-examination, she testified that she felt some sort of pain when her father was taking off her bra, but she did not mind it because she thought she was just being bitten by insects. [16] Third, she testified on direct examination that when her father was taking off her bra, she asked him, "Why are you doing that to me?"; while on cross-examination, she stated that having been suddenly awakened while her father was tying her right hand to the bed post, she was not able to come to her senses immediately and managed only to say, "Tay", and nothing more. [17] Apart from these inconsistencies in Mary Ann's testimony, the accused also cites inconsistencies in her conduct. For one, Mary Ann continued to live with the accused after the alleged June 13, 1997 rape incident and July 18, 1997 attempted rape, i.e. , from June 14, 1997 to August 25, 1997. [18] She also threw away her torn bra and the bloodied blanket which, according to the accused, she could have shown to her mother as proof that her father raped her. [19] Considering the above inconsistencies, among others, the accused concludes that the presumption of his innocence has not been overthrown and he should thus be acquitted. We disagree. The inconsistencies pointed out by the accused are all but minor and tend to bolster rather than weaken the credibility of the victim and her testimony. [20