RAPE: Three principles which courts should take into account when reviewing rape cases, namely: (1) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even more difficult to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. - G.R. No. 193665

G.R. No. 193665

"x x x.

 In deciding this case, we are guided by the three principles which courts should take into account when reviewing rape cases, namely: (1) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even more difficult to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[10]  Because of these guiding principles, we are confronted with one core issue: the credibility of the victim.

          Time and again, we have held that when at issue is the credibility of the victim, we give great weight to the trial court’s assessment.  In fact, the trial court's finding of facts is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.  Our reason is that the trial court had the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying.  It is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence.[11]

          In the instant case, both the RTC and the CA recognized the credibility and believability of AAA’s testimony.  They both gave credence to the testimony of AAA who narrated her ordeal in a straightforward, convincing, and consistent manner, interrupted only by her convulsive sobbing.  We cannot but do the same, considering that both the RTC and the CA found AAA’s testimony credible and believable.  Indeed, AAA’s brother Santiago testified that his father could have not raped her because he would have heard it.  Moreover, Santiago did not categorically say that no rape happened.  Rather, he only claimed that since he was at the other room he could have heard whatever happened at the other room where the rape occurred.  Not because Santiago did not hear anything and the victim did not shout, no rape has ever happened.  As correctly pointed out by the RTC, defense witness Santiago's testimony deserves scant consideration because negative evidence cannot prevail over the positive assertions of the private complainant.  An evidence is negative when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence.[12]  In this case, what Santiago declared in the RTC is that he did not hear anything, but such testimony does not negate the positive assertion of AAA that she was raped.  Thus, “[b]etween the positive assertions of the [victim] and the negative averments of the [appellant], the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[13]  Furthermore, we agree with both the RTC and the CA that lust is no respecter of time and precinct and known to happen in most unlikely places.  Indeed, rape can either happen in populated area or in the privacy of a room.

          Of course, the accused-appellant belabored the issues of AAA’s lack of resistance and the absence in her testimony of an allegation that the accused-appellant used a weapon to make her submit to his desires.  However, the same must fail because not all victims react in the same manner[14] and that the absence of the use of weapon is immaterial since, as put forward by the Office of the Solicitor General, “(The lack of) resistance is immaterial when the accused is the father or is closely related to the victim, the moral ascendancy and influence substitutes physical violence or intimidation.”[15]

          The accused-appellant also argued that AAA charged her own father of rape because she begrudged him for his tyrannical ways.  However, we agree with the RTC and the CA when they said that mere disciplinary chastisement does not suffice for a daughter to accuse her father and invent charges of rape which would bring shame and humiliation to the victim and to her family and loved ones if the same did not really happen.  In our view, we cannot simply ignore the consistent and unwavering testimony of AAA pointing to her father as her rapist.

          Finally, our moral fiber must have truly deteriorated with fathers raping their own children.  For a Christian nation like ours, such bestial act should never be tolerated.  Some would argue that for the sake of the family the child must forgive her father-tormentor.  But in the eyes of the law, a crime is a crime and justice dictates that fathers who rape their children deserve no place in our society.

x x x."