G.R. No. 243191 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. XXX,* ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the assailed February 2, 2017 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx , in Criminal Case Nos. T-4877, T-4878, T-4879, and T-4880, finding accused-appellant [XXX] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each count is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count; the award of moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to Php75,000.00. respectively, for each count; and interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from [the] date of finality of this decision until full payment. SO ORDERED . [15] Hence, this appeal. The accused-appellant seeks affirmative relief from this Court and seeks the reversal of his conviction. XXX and the Office of the Solicitor General ( OSG ) both manifested that they are no longer submitting Supplemental Brief; instead, they will be adopting the Briefs they submitted in the CA. [16] Thus, the case was deemed submitted for decision. Issue Did the CA err in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant tor four counts of rape? The Court's Ruling The appeal lacks merit. Settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and, at times, even finality, and that its findings are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless there is a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily, or it appears from the records that certain facts or circumstances of weight, substance or value were overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court and, which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility. Indeed, trial judges are in the best position to assess whether the witness is telling a truth or lie as they have the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of the witness while testifying. [17] In the present case, the CA affirmed the RTC's finding on the truthfulness of AAA's testimony. We see no reason to deviate from the trial and appellate courts' factual findings that BBB had carnal knowledge of AAA on four (4) occasions. We find no evidence that will show that the trial court overlooked or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, or that the trial court acted arbitrarily. Thus, we are bound by the findings of the trial court. As correctly pointed out by the CA, XXX did not impute any improper motive on AAA's part to falsely testify against him. AAA's testimony of the horrific incidents of rape was also corroborated by Dr. Dante V. Mirasol who found definit