G.R. No. 182690 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDGARDO OGARTE Y OCOB, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Edgaro Ogarte Y Ocob guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged, aggravated by relationship and age, in relation to Art. 47 of the same Code, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH for each count and orders him to pay the private offended party the sums of P75,000.00 as indemnity for each count and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count, or a total of P250,000.00. [33] The RTC said that the constitutional presumption of innocence that Ogarte originally enjoyed was sufficiently overcome by AAA's clear, straightforward, credible, and truthful declaration that on two separate occasions, he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her, without her consent and against her will, in violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC also debunked Ogarte's imputation of ill motive on AAA, stating that while the supposed "whipping and slapping" happened only in February 1997, AAA had exposed Ogarte's appalling acts as early as December 5, 1996. Citing People v. Victor , [34] the RTC held that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the crime. [35] Moreover, Ogarte, in interposing the defense of denial and alibi, "failed to demonstrate and show that `he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime and that is why it is physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and commit the crime.'" [36] The RTC also held that AAA's delay in filing a case against Ogarte is not uncommon and is justified in light of the threats made against her life if she told anyone about the rapes, on top of the fact that her own mother told her to keep quiet about it. [37] On intermediate appellate review, [38] the Court of Appeals "synthesized for coherence" [39] the errors assigned by Ogarte as follows: "(1) credibility of the victim-witness, (2) appellant's defense of denial, and (3) aggravating circumstance of minority." [40] Ogarte argued AAA's testimony was replete with inconsistencies, her minority was never duly established, and his credible alibi should have been believed in view of the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. [41] The Court of Appeals gave full weight to the RTC's determination that AAA's testimony was "credible, worthy of full faith and credit," since there was nothing in the records, which showed that the RTC misappreciated the facts or was arbitrary in giving probative value on AAA's testimony. The Court of Appeals also held that the "allegation of inconsistency does not detract AAA's credibility" [42] as sworn statements, not being conclusive proofs, cannot prevail over AAA's testimonies given in open court. On the issue of delay in filing this case, the Court of Appeals said it was justified "c