G.R. No. 215202 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. VILLARIN CLEMENO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , judgment is hereby rendered finding accused VILLARIN CLEMENO y LOZANO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Rape penalized under Article 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, under Criminal Case Nos. 14007 and 14008, and sentencing him in each case to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and to indemnify [AAA] f or each count of rape the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs of suit must also be paid by the accused. [13] The CA Ruling On appeal, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. According to the CA, with regard to appreciating the credibility of witnesses, "the trial court is in a better position than the appellate or reviewing court because the former had the full opportunity to observe directly the witness' deportment and manner of testifying." [14] Moreover, "delay in reporting an incident of rape is not necessarily an indication that the charge was fabricated, particularly when the delay can be attributed to fear instilled by threats from one who exercises ascendancy over the victim." [15] On the issue of the alleged influence exerted by his brother-in-law over AAA, the CA observed that such a reason was "too flimsy and insignificant for a daughter to falsely charge her father with a serious crime and to publicly disclose that she had been raped and then undergo the concomitant humiliation, anxiety, and exposure to public trial unless it was true." [16] The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the APPEAL of accused-appellant Villarin L. Clemeno is hereby DENIED . Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated October 19, 2010, rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch VII, Batangas City, in Criminal Cases No. 14007 and 14008 are hereby AFFIRMED . [17] OUR RULING The Court finds no reason to reverse the conviction. Considering that only two persons are usually involved in rape cases, even the lone uncorroborated testimony of the victim is enough to prove the crime as charged, as long as the testimony is clear, positive and probable. [18] Here, the trial court found AAA's testimony to be clear, straightforward, and convincing, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency. A well-entrenched doctrine where the issue is one of credibility is that the trial court's assessment is given great weight and is deemed conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. This is because the trial court has the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying. It is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence. [19] On accused-appellant's contention that AAA put up insufficient resistance to warrant a finding that the sexual intercourse was against her will, t