G.R. No. 129213 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GERRY

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, GERRY PEREZ y Nagsagaray GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs. And the word of the law, it is thundered: Dura lex, sed lex, meaning, The law is harsh, but that is the law. SO ORDERED Accused has appealed from the judgment of conviction, submitting the following assigned errors: [9] I THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND UNBELIEVABLE TESTIMONIES OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND HER WITNESSES. Accused-appellant faults the trial court for finding him guilty of the crime of rape based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which he alleges to be replete with flaws and improbabilities. He alleges that there exists inconsistencies between the sworn statements of victim Marife Ticuan and also of Jimmy dela Pena and their declarations in court. In trying to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, accusedappellant points out the following: (1) Victim Marife Ticuan and his cousin Jimmy dela Peña testified that they were in the company of other children, namely: Myra, Mylen and Gladys playing sipa and that the place where the alleged rape took place was a one- room place. Accused claims that if it was true that he molested the victim, it could have been seen by the other children who in the ordinary way of things would have come to Marifes succor or go out to report the unusual incident; that raping Marife when the playmates were around would be highly improbable and runs contrary to human nature and experience because the mere presence of other people deters a person from committing a crime more so the rape of a child; (2) Jimmy testified that from the bodega where they were playing, he ran upstairs to light his sipa; when her grandmother forbade him from doing so, he immediately rushed down again to the bodega. Accused-appellant claims that considering Jimmys youthfulness and energy it took Jimmy only a minute to do this, leaving the accused a very short time to enter the bodega, look for Marife, remove her panty, put out his penis and have intercourse with her. Accused-appellant claims that in Marifes testimony, she said that after he inserted his penis inside her vagina, it took a long time thereafter before he removed his sexual organ, but from Jimmy dela Peñas testimony, it took Jimmy a very short interval to run from the bodega and return back; (3) The actuation of Federica Ticuan , the victims mother, elicits suspicion. After learning of her daughters ordeal, she chose to look first for the accused and not finding him, looked for the uncle of the accused instead of immediately bringing he