G.R. No. 178323 Case Digest

G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee

v Armando Chingh y Parcia, accused-appellant

Ponente: Peralta

Facts:

Chingh seeks the reversal of the decision of CA convicting him of statutory rape and rape through sexual assault.

On march 2005, an information was filed against Chingh for inserting his fingers and afterwards his penis into the private part of his minor victim.

Upon his arraignment, Chingh pleaded not guilty. at the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, the victims father, PO3 Solidarios and Dr. Baluyot. The defense presented the lone testimony of Chingh.

On April 2005, the RTC finding the evidence of the prosecution overwhelming against the accused denial and alibi rendered a decision convicting Chingh of statutory rape.

Aggrieved, chingh appealed the decision before CA, on December 2006 CA rendered decision Chingh guilty of statutory rape and rape through sexual assault.

Chingh now comes to court for relief. in a resolution, September 2007, the court required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. in their manifestations, the parties waived the filing of their supplemental briefs and instead adopted their respective briefs filed before CA

Chingh raises the following errors: (1) the trial court graved erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of rape under article 266-a paragraph 1 of the RPC in spite the unnatural and unrealistic testimony of the private complainant. (2) the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt.

Chingh maintains that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that will overcome the presumption of innocence. 

ruling: court agreed with RTC that the testimonies presented by the prosecution is favorable than the mere denial and alibi of the accused.

Section 3, Rule 120 of the RPC supports the decision of CA to charged accused with two offenses, since Chingh failed to file a motion to quash the information.

CA's decision is affirmed with modification of the penalty for the sexual assault.