G.R. No. 126115 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ALFONSO BALGOS, ALIAS "LUPOG," ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding accused Alfonso Balgos alias "Lupog" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and punished under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, judgment is hereby rendered imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death. He is likewise, ordered to indemnify private complainant Crisselle Fuentes fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil damages. [32] In accordance with Section 10, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, the case is now before us for automatic review. In his lone assignment of error, the accused-appellant contends that: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF RAPE AND NOT OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM HERSELF AND THE ACCUSED APPELLANT. [33] The accused-appellant again plays up the fact that Dr. Lañada's medical examination showed that the hymen of Crisselle only had a 0.2 cm. laceration. [34] On this score, the accused-appellant admits that something was indeed inserted in Crisselle's vagina. However, he points out that it was only his finger that inflicted the said laceration and not his penis with a 3 ½ inch circumference. [35] He insists that if his penis was the one inserted in the victim's vagina, the laceration would have been more severe and she would have died from hemorrhaging. [36] The accused-appellant, likewise, asserts that since the prosecution claimed that there was an actual penetration, it must prove, therefore, that the small laceration in the victim's hymen was caused by the accused-appellant's sex organ. Considering the physical evidence adduced in the case, the accused-appellant claims that he should have only been convicted of acts of lasciviousness and not rape. After a meticulous review of the evidence in this case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Prefatorily, we note the well-established rule that the trial court's evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at capriciously or that the trial court disregarded material facts which might affect the outcome of the case. [37] The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it has the Opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses. [38] In the present case, the trial court is correct in giving credence to Crisselle's testimony over that of the accused-appellant. Crisselle's testimony was simple, concise and cohesive. Q When Michele (sic) and Waday left the house what did Alfonso Balgos do, if there were any? A He closed the door and then locked it and then he undress (sic) me and he also undress (sic) himself and took off his brief. Q When you said undress you meaning Alfonso Balgos removed your entire clothing? A I have (sic) my clothes on only the short (sic) an