THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233858. March 14, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RENE ALBIOR, a accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233858 (People of the Philippines vs. Rene Albior). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the letter dated February 6, 2018 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since October 9, 2015;
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation and Motion (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated January 29, 2018 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that appellant's guilt and culpability had already been exhaustively discussed in the Appellee's Brief of October 4, 2016; and
(3) accused-appellant's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 19, 2018 stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that he had exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in the appellant's brief.
At bench is an appeal 1 from the decision 2 dated December 2, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 07135. In the said decision, the CA affirmed the conviction 3 of herein appellant Rene Albior for rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
The facts:
On 30 July 2001, a criminal information for rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC was filed against the appellant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales. The information accused the appellant of having carnal knowledge of AAA 4 — a lass then only fifteen (15) years old — through the use of force, threat and intimidation: 5
That on or about the 2nd day of June 2001, in Brgy. [123], Municipality of San Antonio, Province of Zambales, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [appellant], with lewd design and through force, threats, intimidation and by poking a sharp object at his victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with and carnal knowledge of [AAA], a minor 15 years of age, without her consent and against her will, to the damage and prejudice of [AAA].
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The information was raffled to Branch 69 of the Iba RTC and was docketed as Criminal Case No. RTC 3217-I.
In 2004, after being arrested and being apprised of the accusation against him, the appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Trial thereafter followed.
The prosecution presented the testimony of AAA herself to prove the charge against appellant. The substance of AAA's narration is as follows:
1. She was born in 1986 and was raised by her grandmother, BBB. She lives with BBB in Barangay 123 in San Antonio, Zambales.
2. Right next to the house where she and BBB live is the ABC bar — a videoke bar owned by BBB.
3. Prior to 2 June 2001, or the day when she was supposedly raped, she knew the appellant only as one of the regular customers of the ABC bar. She used to see the appellant when she was passing by outside of the ABC bar. She had also heard stories about the appellant from the waitresses of the ABC bar.
4. At around 7:00 PM of 2 June 2001, she was waiting for a tricycle in front of the barangay hall of Barangay 123. She was supposedly on her way home from a house of a friend. After some time waiting, the appellant arrived.
5. The appellant approached and asked her where she was going. When she answered that she was heading home, the appellant offered to accompany her. She reluctantly agreed.
6. As they were walking, the appellant suggested that they should first drop by his house — which was about only 80 meters from the barangay hall — because he needed to get something there. Thinking that they won't take long, she agreed to the appellant's suggestion.
7. Once inside the appellant's house, however, the appellant suddenly pulled her to a room. The appellant then threatened her to not make any noise or he would cause trouble in the ABC bar. At that point, she was overcome with fear and was trembling. She cried.
8. The appellant proceeded to remove his clothes and her clothes. After taking off her clothes, the appellant kissed her neck and breasts and then inserted his penis inside her vagina. When the appellant finished, he went outside of the room and locked its door. Around five (5) minutes later, however, the appellant returned and attempted to have intercourse with her again. She tried to resist by slapping the appellant and by repeatedly pulling on his hair, but the latter pointed a sharp object on her left side. The appellant was thus able to penetrate her for a second time.
9. After the second intercourse, she heard BBB's voice calling out to her from outside the appellant's house. But the appellant prevented her from calling back by covering her mouth with his hands and by again pointing a sharp object on her side. aScITE
10. Once BBB's voice could no longer be heard, the appellant — who was then still pointing a sharp object at her side — dragged her outside the house and led her to a nearby ricefield. There, they boarded a tricycle and headed for the house of the appellant's grandmother in Barangay 456 — another barangay in San Antonio, Zambales.
11. The appellant forced her to spend the night at the house of his grandmother. When morning came, the appellant gave her P100 and instructed her to go to BBB's house in Bataan. She followed the instructions of the appellant and did not tell anyone about what happened because she was afraid.
12. BBB caught up with her after a day of staying in Bataan. She confided to BBB what she went through and the two of them returned to San Antonio. BBB then accompanied her to a certain Dr. Arnel Tejano (Dr. Tejano) for a medical examination and, subsequently, to the police where they reported her rape.
AAA's testimony was supplemented by the testimony of BBB. BBB narrated that she became worried when AAA went missing after 2 June 2001; that a certain "Renious" told her that AAA was last seen together with the appellant; that she learned from AAA's mother that AAA went to Bataan; that she went to Bataan on 4 June 2001 to search for AAA; that when she found AAA she confronted the latter about why she was seen with the appellant; that AAA confided to her that she was raped by the appellant; that, upon learning so, she bought AAA back to Zambales and accompanied the latter to Dr. Tejano for examination and to the police so they could file charges against the appellant.
In addition, the prosecution also presented the medical certificate issued by Dr. Tejano 6 detailing the results of the clinical examination of AAA. The certificate stated that AAA had suffered multiple hymenal lacerations and superficial perineal lacerations.
The defense, on the other hand, countered the prosecution's story with its own version of events solely anchored on the testimony of the appellant. 7
The appellant denied having raped AAA. His plain version is that he was just staying at his house and did not at all see AAA on 2 June 2001. He also claimed that AAA actually works as a GRO at the ABC bar and had frequently visited his house prior to 2 June 2001. The appellant, however, maintained that he never saw AAA on 2 June 2001 or on any date thereafter.
On 26 August 2014, the RTC rendered judgment 8 finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC. As it happened, the trial court accorded full weight and credence to the prosecution's version as relayed by the testimony of AAA. The RTC thus sentenced the appellant to suffer reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay the following amounts to AAA: (a) P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity ex delicto and (b) P50,000.00 by way of moral damages.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal with the CA.
On 24 January 2012, the CA rendered a decision 9 denying the appellant's appeal and sustaining his conviction by the RTC. In keeping with recent jurisprudence, 10 however, the CA introduced the following modifications on the monetary awards payable by the appellant to AAA:
1. As to the appellant's civil liability ex delicto, the same is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00;
2. As to the appellant's liability for moral damages, the same is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00;
3. In addition to his liability for civil indemnity and moral damages, the appellant was also directed to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000; and
4. The appellant was directed to pay interest on all of the foregoing awards at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.
Hence, the present appeal.
In this appeal, the appellant claims that the RTC and the CA erred in according full weight and credence to the testimony of AAA. He argues that a scrutiny of such testimony will reveal that it is riddled with "inconsistencies" and is, therefore, not deserving of belief:
1. AAA had stated that, prior to 2 June 2001, she knew the appellant only from the times that she used to see the appellant when she was passing by outside of the ABC bar and also from stories she heard about the appellant from the waitresses of the ABC bar. She, however, contradicted this statement in a later part of her testimony when she admitted that she and BBB had already been to the appellant's house prior to 2 June 2001.
2. AAA stated that after the appellant raped her the second time on 2 June 2001, she heard BBB's voice calling out to her from outside the appellant's house. This statement, however, is contradicted by BBB's testimony which implies that she only looked for AAA on 4 June 2001 after the former was informed by AAA's mother that AAA went to Bataan.
In view of the apparent inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA, the appellant thus urges this Court to consider his alternate version of events as the truth of what happened in this case and, ultimately, to acquit him of the crime charged.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal.
The long-standing rule in our jurisdiction is that the assessment of a trial court in matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, is accorded great respect — if not finality — on appeal. 11 The rationale of this rule is the recognition of the trial court's unique and distinctive position to be able to observe, firsthand, the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witness whose credibility has been put in issue. 12
The above rule, of course, is not absolute. Indeed, this Court, in not a few cases, had underscored that factual findings of a trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of a witness, may — by way of exception to the rule — be disturbed on appeal whenever there is a clear showing that it had "overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case."13
The appellant, in pointing out the supposed inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA, seems to believe that the exception, rather than the general rule, is applicable to the case at bench. He, in essence, postulates that the RTC and the CA had overlooked the significance of the said inconsistencies that, when considered, would not only cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's story but also lend believability to his own version of events. HEITAD
We disagree.
A perusal of the purported inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA pointed out by the appellant reveals that they merely refer to collateral or trivial matters and do not relate to AAA's otherwise vivid recollection of the material events that transpired on 2 June 2001. Hence, such inconsistencies — even if they do exist — are not sufficient to discredit the prosecution's version as relayed by AAA, much less negate the finding of guilt against the appellant. In People v. Zafra, 14 we pointedly held that "inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony do not impair her credibility . . . if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape."
We accordingly find no error on the part of the RTC and the CA in giving full faith and credit to AAA's testimony. As can be evinced from the records, AAA's narration with respect to the material events that transpired on 2 June 2001 was a clear, categorical and straightforward account of her rape by the appellant. Such narration is complete in itself and is able to establish all elements of the crime of rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC independently and regardless of the "inconsistencies" cited by the appellant. 15 Moreover, AAA's narration was corroborated by pertinent medical findings and is not refuted by any other evidence on record. Certainly, such a narration deserves to be accorded more weight than the testimony of the appellant that merely tells of his unsubstantiated denial. 16
There being no reason to depart from the ruling of the CA on any matter, we resolve to affirm.
WHEREFORE, considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated 2 December 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 07135 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction; and AFFIRM IN TOTO said Decision of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. By way of an ordinary appeal pursuant to Section 13 (c) of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-18. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla for the Second (2nd) Division of the Court of Appeals with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Socorro B. Inting concurring.
3. Via the decision dated 26 August 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, of Iba, Zambales in Crim. Case No. RTC 3217-I. The decision was penned by Presiding Judge Josefina D. Farrales. CA rollo, pp. 68-79.
4. The real name of the minor victim is withheld pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 83-2015. Likewise, the names of the victim's relatives and her other personal circumstances that tend to establish or compromise her identity shall not be disclosed. The names of victim, her relatives and other personal circumstances shall be replaced with fictitious initials.
5. CA rollo, p. 68.
6. The testimony of Dr. Tejano was dispensed with after both the prosecution and the defense agreed to the medical certificate's due execution. See: CA rollo, p. 72.
7. The appellant testified via judicial affidavit. See: CA rollo, p. 73.
8. CA rollo, pp. 68-79.
9.Rollo, pp. 2-18.
10. See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.
11.People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 205200, 21 September 2016 citing People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 526 (2013).
12.Id., citing People v. Costelo, 375 Phil. 381, 391 (1999).
13.Id., citing People v. Realon, 187 Phil. 765, 787 (1980). See also People v. Laganzon, 214 Phil. 294, 307 (1984) citing People v. Surban, 208 Phil. 203, 216 (1983); People v. Balmaceda, 176 Phil. 430, 438-439 (1978); People v. Ancheta, 158 Phil. 542, 547-548 (1974); People v. Geronimo, 153 Phil. 1, 13 (1973); People v. Abboc, 152 Phil. 436, 445 (1973).
14. G.R. No. 197363, 26 June 2013.
15. See rollo, pp. 12-14.
16.See People v. Nogpo, Jr., 603 Phil. 722, 742 (2009).