award of civil indemnity and moral damages to P100,000.00 each; awarded exemplary damages in the amount of
P100,000.00; and stated that all monetary awards in Criminal Case No. 10648 shall earn interest at the legal rate of
six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of judgment until fully paid. The dispositive portion of the CA decision
states:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The appealed Decision dated 22 April 2014 is hereby
ordered MODIFIED as follows:
1. Appellant [YYY] is GUILTY of the crime of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No. 10648 and is hereby sentenced to
the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is likewise ordered to pay AAA the following: civil
indemnity of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00), moral damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php 100,000.00), and exemplary damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.000);
2. Appellant [YYY] is ACQUITTED of the crime of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No. 10649 for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
All monetary awards for damages in Criminal Case No. 10648 shall earn interest at the legal rate of six (6%) per
annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Hence, this appeal assailing YYY 's conviction for the crime of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 10648. He raises
the following assignment of errors in his Brief for the Accused-Appellant:[10]
I.
THE COURT A OUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES
CHARGED DESPITE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED
INCIDENTS.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
DOUBTFUL IDENTITY OF THE ACTUAL CULPRIT.
III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
IV.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[11]
In a Resolution[12] dated December 11, 2017, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental
briefs, if they so desired. In his Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief [13] dated March 21, 2018, YYY manifested
that he did not intend to file a supplemental brief, since all relevant issues were exhaustively discussed in his
Appellant's Brief. In its Manifestation and Motion[14] dated March 19, 2018, the Office of the Solicitor General stated
that it had already discussed all relevant issues in its brief before the CA and asked that it be excused from filing its
supplemental brief.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to
disprove the accusation is difficult, though the accused may be innocent; (2) inasmuch as only two persons are
usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and
(3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and should not be allowed to draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[15]
Further, the review of a criminal case opens up the case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by both
the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, avoiding general conclusions based on isolated pieces of
evidence. In the case of rape, a review begins with the reality that rape is a very serious accusation that is painful to