•
Decision
-6-
G.R. No. 227363
stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Comi of
Appeals. 7
Here, in Criminal Case No. SCC-6210 for sexual assault, both the RTC
and the CA found AAA's testimony to be credible, straightforward and
unwavering when she testified that Tulagan forcibly inserted his finger in
her vagina. In Criminal Case No. SCC-6211 for statutory rape, both the
RTC and the CA also found that the elements thereof were present, to wit:
(1) accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, and (2) said act was
accomplished when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age.
Indubitably, the courts a quo found that the prosecution was able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt Tulagan's guilt for the crime of rape. We find no
reason to deviate from said findings and conclusions of the courts a quo.
Jurisprudence tells us that a witness' testimony containing
inconsistencies or discrepancies does not, by such fact alone, diminish the
credibility of such testimony. In fact, the variance in minor details has the
net effect of bolstering instead of diminishing the witness' credibility
because they discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony. Instead, what
remains paramount is the witness' consistency in relating the principal
elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the
accused as the perpetrator of the same. 8
As correctly held by the CA, the fact that some of the details testified
to by AAA did not appear in her Sinumpaang Salaysay does not mean that
the sexual assault did not happen. AAA was still able to narrate all the
details of the sexual assault she suffered in Tulagan's hands. AAA's account
of her ordeal being straightforward and candid and corroborated by the
medical findings of the examining physician, as well as her positive
identification of Tulagan as the perpetrator of the crime, are, thus, sufficient
to support a conviction of rape.
As for Tulagan's imputation of ill motive on the part of AAA's
grandmother, absent any concrete supporting evidence, said allegation will
not convince us that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the
victim and her supporting witness was tainted with arbitrariness or blindness
to a fact of consequence. We reiterate the principle that no young girl, such
as AAA, would concoct a sordid tale, on her own or through the influence of
her grandmother as per Tulagan's intimation, undergo an invasive medical
examination then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a
public trial, if her motive was other than a fervent desire to seek justice. In
People v. Garcia, 9 we held:
Id. at 658.
People v. Appegu, 429 Phil. 467, 477 (2002).
695 Phil. 576(2012).
{If
'
~
f