THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244348. July 10, 2019.]
MONZEN CAMBONGA y LUMBAO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244348 (Monzen Cambonga y Lumbao vs. People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision 1 dated February 24, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated January 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36770, which affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated March 18, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5 of Manila, in Crim. Case No. 00-183897.
Petitioner Monzen Cambonga y Lumbao (Cambonga) was charged before the RTC with sexual abuse of a child under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
In its Decision on March 18, 2014, the RTC convicted Cambonga of the crime of rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and sentenced him as follows: HTcADC
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, the Court finds accused MONZEN CAMBONGA y LUMBAO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT defined and penalized under Article 266-A paragraph (2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
Consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in People vs. Chingh, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
He is further adjudged to PAY private complainant (a) civil indemnity of P30,000.00, (b) moral damages of P30,000.00, (c) exemplary damages of P30,000.00 and (d) the costs of suit. 4
Cambonga appealed before the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated February 24, 2017, the appellate court denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC judgment of conviction with the modification imposing 6% interest on all damages awarded from date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
The Court of Appeals denied Cambonga's Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution dated January 23, 2019.
Cambonga elevated his case to this Court via the instant Petition for Review.
The Court resolves to deny the instant Petition for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Cambonga's Petition fundamentally raises questions of fact which require the Court to sift through the records, and examine and inquire into the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties before the trial court. A petition for review on certiorari, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, should be limited to questions of law. A re-examination of factual findings cannot be done through a petition under Rule 45 because this Court is not a trier of facts. This Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the RTC. Moreover, it is settled that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case, 5 a circumstance which is not extant in the present case. CAIHTE
In addition, whenever the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthier of belief, the assessment by the trial court is generally given respect, if not finality. The assigning of values to the declarations of witnesses is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched opportunity to observe the demean or of witnesses and assess their credibility. 6
While the Court shall not disturb the judgment of conviction rendered against Cambonga by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, it further modifies the same to conform to its recent en banc ruling in People v. Tulagan. 7
First, considering that Cambonga sexually assaulted a child under twelve years old, his victim being only seven years old at the time of the incident, the exact designation of the crime he committed is "sexual assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610," which is punishable with reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, shall be imposed in the medium period of the imposable penalty, which ranges from fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days. The minimum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code, which is prision temporal in its minimum period or within the range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, which the RTC imposed on petitioner, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is correct.
Second, Cambonga is liable to pay his victim the amounts of PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP50,000.00 as moral damages, and PhP50,000.00 as exemplary damages, which shall all earn annual legal interest of six percent (6%) from the date this judgment becomes final until they are fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of petitioner Monzen Cambonga y Lumbao and to AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the Decision dated February 24, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36770, to wit: (a) petitioner is found GUILTY of Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610; and (b) Cambonga is ordered to PAY his victim the amounts of PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP50,000.00 as moral damages, and PhP50,000.00 as exemplary damages, which shall be subject to legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this judgment until full satisfaction. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 247-255, penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court) and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring.
2.Id. at 275-276.
3.Id. at 170-195, penned by Presiding Judge Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito.
4.Id. at 194-195.
5.Dacanay v. People, G.R. No. 199018, September 27, 2017.
6.People v. Nuyok, 759 Phil. 437, 447 (2015).
7. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.