SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222210. June 20, 2016.]
NOEL CASTILLANO Y ASUTILYO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 June 2016which reads as follows:
''G.R. No. 222210 (Noel Castillano y Asutilyo v. People of the Philippines) — This is a Rule 45 petition 1 assailing the October 26, 2015 decision 2 and the January 11, 2016 resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04675, which affirmed the July 22, 2010 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 163, Taguig City finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape against minor AAA.
Factual Antecedents
The records of the case show that on January 14, 2002 at around 4:00 a.m., AAA was awakened by the petitioner, who was poking a knife at her neck. The petitioner told AAA to remove her clothes. AAA took out her shirt as ordered while the petitioner removed her shorts. The petitioner also tied AAA's hands with a cord and gagged her with a face towel. He then inserted his penis in AAA's vagina. He also inserted his finger and licked AAA's private part. After AAA's ordeal in the hands of the petitioner, the latter untied her hands and threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident to anyone.
AAA informed BBB and CCC about what happened when the petitioner left. They went to the police station and to Camp Crame to report the incident. P/Insp. Sabiano conducted AAA's medical examination. Per the Official Medico-Legal Report No. 0019-01-14-01, AAA suffered "shallow fresh [hymenal] laceration[s] at 4, 6 and 7 o'clock position" caused by "recent blunt penetrating trauma." AAA likewise sustained injuries on her neck, abdomen and extremities. 4
In his defense, the petitioner testified that he was at the vulcanizing shop until 10:00 o'clock p.m. He claimed that he was sleeping at his house at the time of the rape incident. At around 7:00 o'clock a.m., he was awakened by his wife because the police, including AAA and BBB were looking for him and were waiting outside. He alleged that the police invited him for questioning so he agreed to go with them at the police station. He contended that AAA and BBB failed to identify him when they reported the incident to the police, as shown in the police logbook. He likewise alleged that he was not informed of the reason of his detention. Moreover, the petitioner argued that based on the DNA analysis report, no male DNA profile was present in the vaginal swab taken from AAA.
The RTC's decision
The RTC, in its July 22, 2010 decision convicted the petitioner of rape under Articles 266-A, paragraph 1 (a), and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC sentenced the petitioner to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It likewise ordered him to pay the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages, and; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The petitioner appealed to the CA.
The petitioner claimed that the RTC gravely erred in convicting him by simply relying on AAA's testimony. He argued that he was denied the right to due process when the RTC failed to consider in his favor the DNA analysis report showing that the vaginal swab and the vaginal smear taken from AAA did not contain any male DNA profile. He further assailed the validity of his arrest.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People of the Philippines, countered that AAA's testimony was supported by her medical examination showing lacerations in AAA's hymen as a result of blunt penetrating trauma. On the matters allegedly omitted from AAA's testimony in open court vis a vis her sworn affidavit, the OSG explained that those matters were not asked of AAA during her examination. It also argued that the absence of any male DNA profile in AAA's vaginal swab did not mean that no rape occurred. Finally, it asserted that the petitioner was estopped from questioning the validity of his arrest for his failure to raise this objection before entering his plea.
The CA's decision
In its October 26, 2015 decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling with the following modifications: the civil indemnity was reduced to P50,000.00; (2) the awards of moral damages and exemplary damages were increased to P75,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively, and; (3) interest at the rate of 6% per annum was imposed on all the damages awarded from the date of the finality of judgment until full payment. 5
The CA found the petitioner's arguments to be unmeritorious. It held that the prosecution duly proved all the elements of the crime of rape through force, threat, or intimidation. It declared that the results of the DNA analysis would not exculpate the petitioner from the crime of rape in light of other evidence sufficiently proving the petitioner's guilt. It added that neither a positive DNA match of the semen nor the presence of the spermatozoa is essential in finding that rape was committed, as the important consideration in rape cases is the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. 6
The CA likewise denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration in its January 21, 2016 resolution.
The Petition for Review on Certiorari
In the present petition, the petitioner prays that the CA's decision be reversed and set aside, and that he be acquitted from the crime charged. 7 He insists that the CA committed serious error when it affirmed the petitioner's conviction of the crime of rape by giving credence to AAA's testimony. 8 He points out that AAA omitted material details in her testimony that are hard to explain. 9 He likewise argues that the CA erred in the appreciation of the parties' evidence. 10 He claims that the CA also erred in disregarding the findings of the forensic and DNA analyst. 11 Moreover, he questions the constitutionality of his arrest. 12
Our Ruling
We deny the petition for lack of merit. However, the respective awards of civil indemnity and exemplary damages should be increased to P75,000.00 to conform with the prevailing jurisprudence. 13
The petitioner's defense essentially focuses on two main points: first, the trial court's appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution to support the petitioner's conviction, and; second, the constitutionality of his arrest.
The RTC and the CA did not err
As a rule, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses' testimonies deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or the disregard of facts or circumstances of weight and influence. 14 This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.
In the present case, none of the established exceptions is present. Thus, we find no sufficient reason that would justify the reversal of the trial court's appreciation of the credibility of AAA's testimony.
In attacking AAA's credibility, the petitioner alleged that AAA's testimony contained unexplained material omissions when examined vis-a-vis her sworn statement. We note, however, that the trial and the appellate courts did not find any material contradictions between AAA's affidavit and her testimony in open court. Assuming that there were contradictions, jurisprudence instructs us that sworn statements, because they are not conclusive proof, cannot prevail over AAA's testimonies given in open court. 15
There was also no showing of any deliberate attempt to leave out some matters mentioned in AAA's sworn statement. As the OSG explained, the logical explanation behind those omissions was that the allegedly omitted matters pertain to facts not asked of AAA during her examination in court. Besides, the omitted circumstances do not suffice to warrant the acquittal of the accused as they are not material at all in the prosecution of the crime of rape.
We therefore declare that the prosecution sufficiently proved that the petitioner committed the crime of rape.
Under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, there is rape when the offender had sexual intercourse with a woman through force, threat or intimidation. In the present case, the prosecution established the elements of rape required under Article 266-A of the RPC.
First, the petitioner had carnal knowledge of AAA. AAA narrated in plain, direct and categorical manner that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on January 14, 2002 by inserting his penis into her private part. AAA's testimony is corroborated by the Official Medico-Legal Report No. 0019-01-14-01, showing that AAA sustained hymenal lacerations from blunt penetrating trauma. We have held that sufficient basis exists to conclude that sexual intercourse took place when a victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration. 16
The petitioner's argument on the absence of male DNA profile from the sample taken from AAA is also unmeritorious. This cannot support to exonerate the petitioner from the crime charged as this absence does not negate the occurrence of the rape. We stress that the material fact to be considered in this case is the carnal knowledge of the victim against her will.
Second, the prosecution also established that the petitioner employed threat, force and intimidation to satisfy his bestial desire. AAA recalled that the petitioner was armed with a knife when he committed the crime. The petitioner also tied her hands, and covered her mouth with a face towel while doing the sexual acts. He afterwards threatened to kill her if she would reveal the incident to anyone. These facts indicate that the petitioner's acts were against AAA's will.
The petitioner is estopped from assailing
We also reject the petitioner's contentions regarding the irregularities attendant to his warrantless arrest. It is settled that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment, thus, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 17
Nevertheless, even if the petitioner's warrantless arrest is proven to be indeed invalid, this eventuality would still not support his cause; it is settled that the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause to set aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. 18
All told, we find that the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the petitioner's conviction of the crime of rape.
The Penalty
The CA also correctly affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC on the petitioner in accordance with Article 266-B, in relation to Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC.
The Proper Indemnities
We increase the respective awards of civil indemnity and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 to conform with the recent policy of the court. 19 We find the award of P75,000.00 as moral damages proper pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence. 20
Finally, as the CA did, we likewise impose interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all the monetary awards for damages, computed from the date of the finality of the judgment until the awards' full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the October 26, 2015 decision and the January 11, 2016 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04675 with the MODIFICATION that the respective awards of civil indemnity and exemplary damages are increased to P75,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
*Del Castillo, J., on leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 9-30.
2. Id. at 33-41; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
3. Id. at 56-57.
4. Id. at 35.
5. Rollo, p. 41.
6. Id. at 40.
7. Id. at 28.
8. Id. at 20.
9. Id. at 21.
10. Id. at 23.
11. Id. at 25-26.
12. Id. at 27.
13. People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 207630, April 5, 2016.
14. People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013, 710 SCRA 784.
15. People v. Ogarte, G.R. No. 182690, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 395.
16. People v. Corpuz, 517 Phil. 622, 637 (2006).
17. Supra note 14.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Supra note 13.