G.R. No. 209040 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RODOLFO PATEÑO Y DAYAPDAPAN, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, this [c]ourt finds accused RODOLFO PATEÑO y DAYAPDAPAN, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape for five (5) counts as provided under the provisions of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, and pursuant to the provisions of par. (1) of Article 266-B, he may be meted the extreme penalty of death. But, with the passage of Republic Act No. 8353, he is thereby meted the penalty of FIVE (5) RECLUSION PERPETUAS , and with all the accessory penalties. He is thereby ordered to pay the victim, [AAA], the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for actual damages and another FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for moral damages, and to pay costs. [14] On 23 May 2013, the CA rendered the assailed judgment affirming with modification the trial court's decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED . The Joint Decision dated April 27, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court RTC), Branch 45, Bais City in Criminal Case Nos. F-03-12-A, F-03-13-A, F-03-14-A, F-03-15-A, [and] F-03-16-A convicting Rodolfo Pateño y Dayapdapan of five (5) counts of rape and meting him the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua for each count, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS as to damages. Accused-appellant Rodolfo Pateño y Dayapdapan is ordered to pay the victim AAA Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, for each count of rape, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment. No costs. [15] Accused-appellant filed the instant appeal. In a Resolution [16] dated 18 November 2013, accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) were required to file their respective supplemental briefs if they so desired. Both parties manifested that they were adopting their respective briefs filed before the appellate court. [17] In his Brief, [18] accused-appellant argues that AAA's testimony regarding the time and manner of the purported five (5) rape incidents is incredulous. Accused-appellant insists that AAA did not feel any fatherly love towards him and she had the motive to falsely accuse him of rape. Accused-appellant claimed that AAA had been reprimanded numerous times by him because of her unacceptable behavior. Finally, accused-appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove AAA's age at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The appeal is without merit. Accused-appellant insists that AAA's claim of sequent rape identically done is highly improbable and contrary to human experience. In People v. Solomon , [19] we held that the victim's uniform testimony regarding the manner by which she was raped does not diminish her credibility. We explained, thus: Men are creatures of habit and are bound to adopt a course of action that has proven to be successful. As appellant