identification that accused-appellants conspired in stabbing and mauling BBB,
resulting in the latter's death; and that thereafter, Angeles proceeded to rape her
while Alejandro restrained her arms to prevent her from resisting. Absent any
cogent reason to the contrary, the Court defer to the findings of fact of both courts
and, thereby, upholds Angeles's conviction for Rape in Crim. Case No. 73-SD(96)
and Homicide in Crim. Case No. 74-SD(96), given that the elements of said crimes
square with the established incidents. In People v. Antonio:[27]
It is a fundamental rule that the trial court's factual findings, especially its
assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect
and binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by the [CA]. This Court has
repeatedly recognized that the trial court is in the best position to assess the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique position of
having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses'
deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the
appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of
conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant
or full realization of an oath. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity
of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth. The appellate courts will
generally not disturb such findings unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[28]
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court deems it appropriate to modify Angeles's
conviction in Crim. Case No. 73-SD(96), as ruled by the CA. As adverted to earlier,
the CA convicted Angeles for two (2) counts of Simple Rape in Crim. Case No. 73SD(96) alone, ratiocinating that "Angeles must be held liable for two (2) counts of
simple rape in Crim. Case No. 73-SD(96) for raping AAA and for aiding (or
conspiring with) Alejandro in raping her."[29]
The CA erred on this matter.
The accusatory portion of the amended Information in Crim. Case No. 73-SD(96)
states that "[Angeles], with lewd designs, and in conspiracy with one [Alejandro],
by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously had carnal knowledge of one [AAA] against her will and consent, to
the damage and prejudice of the said offended party."[30] Plainly, the wording of the
amended Information reveals that it charged accused-appellants with only one (1)
count of Rape. As such, it was error for the CA to convict Angeles with two (2)
counts. Thus, Angeles must be convicted with one (1) count of Rape in relation to
Crim. Case No. 73-SD(96).
On a related matter, since the Information in Crim. Case No. 73-SD(96) was
allowed to be amended to include Alejandro as a co-accused and that accusedappellants were convicted of such charge, the Court deems it proper to upgrade the