G.R. No. 176632 (Formerly G.R. Nos. 151570-71) - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROBERTO GINGOS y LATABI and NESTOR MARGOTE y CAICDOY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , We affirm the conviction of accused-appellants but for two (2) counts of Rape, sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of two (2) reclusion perpetua . Accused-appellants are further directed to pay the victim [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. Before us, appellants adopt their brief submitted to the appellate court and once again raise as the sole assignment of error the failure of the trial court to appreciate the testimony of the Gingos and that of their corroborating witness. Appellants maintain that the charges against them are fabricated and that the testimony of AAA merely presented general allegations without supporting evidence. More particularly, they make issue of AAA's failure to offer in evidence the medical certificate and report issued by the physician who allegedly examined her after the incident. Finally, appellants point out as suspicious AAA's failure to manifest physical resistance against her alleged ravishers and her claim that Gingos had raped her for an hour. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. The duty to ascertain the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court, [13] because it has the unique position of observing the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any compelling reason to justify the reversal of the evaluations and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. [14] In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. [15] Her testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution. [16] When a rape victim's testimony, however, is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. [17] Jurisprudence has established doctrinal guidelines in scrutinizing such trustworthiness, viz : (1) the appellate tribunal will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness. [18] The trial judge made the following observations on AAA: In contrast [to the appellants' contentions] the declaration