THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225216. April 3, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. LARRY MEKIPO ANGULO,accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 3, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225216 (People of the Philippines v. Larry Mekipo Angulo)-Accused-appellant Larry Mekipo Angulo challenges before Us the July 13, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals 1 (CA) in CA-GR CEB-CR-HC No. 00882, which affirmed his conviction for the crime of rape by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62 in Oslob, Cebu, in a Decision 2 dated June 19, 2008 in Criminal Case No. OS-04-325.
Facts
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape of AAA. 3 The Information stated:
"That on the 6th day of December 2003 at 8:00 o'clock in the morning, more or less, at XXX, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with deliberate intent, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with AAA, against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
The prosecution alleged that AAA lived with her aunt BBB, accused-appellant, who is BBB's first cousin, and Rosalinda Ondac, BBB's househelper. BBB told AAA to pasture their cows in the morning of December 6, 2003. When AAA went to fetch the cows, she noticed one of them was missing and looked for the missing one. She found it in the grassy area, securely tied. While she was attempting to untie the knot, accused-appellant approached her, held her left arm and angrily confronted her regarding an earlier incident. Accused-appellant punched her several times in the stomach and chest and then pushed and kicked her several times in the stomach, causing her to fall. While on the ground, accused-appellant incessantly boxed her thighs and undressed her. He touched her private parts, inserted his fingers twice and his penis upon her vagina. After ravishing her, accused-appellant struck her on the head with a stone, tied her arms and legs, and covered her with twigs and grass and left her. 4
AAA managed to unbind herself and stayed seated in a shaded area where she was found by BBB and Rosalinda. They took her home and reported the incident to the police station. Thereafter, they went to the Vicente Sotto Medical Center where AAA was examined and treated. 5
AAA denied that she had a relationship with accused-appellant and declared that she had no prior sexual experience. 6 BBB was presented and corroborated AAA's testimony on what transpired after the alleged incident.
The prosecution also presented Dr. Madelline Amadora. She testified that AAA suffered from multiple injuries and that an examination of AAA's genitalia yielded the presence of sperm, fresh hymenal lacerations at 4 o'clock, 7 o'clock and 11 o'clock. In her medical opinion, AAA's condition was a result of physical and sexual abuse. On cross-examination, she categorically declared that the injuries sustained cannot be self-inflicted. 7
The defense presented accused-appellant, who testified that he and AAA had been lovers for nine months prior to December 6, 2003. That morning, they had sexual intercourse in a nearby hut and afterwards, had an argument about accused-appellant's other lover, Rosalinda. Accused-appellant claims that AAA slapped him and since he was worried about what she might do to him because she was holding a scythe, he boxed her on the cheeks which caused AAA to fall on the rope that held the cow. The cow then ran and dragged AAA along. Accused-appellant helped her up, but AAA continued to utter threats and derogatory statements against him so he kicked her and she fell on a stone and wounded her head. He then tied AAA's torn jacket on her bleeding head, fetched the cow and went home. 8
Rosalinda was also presented who testified that AAA has been jealous of her and accused-appellant, with whom she has a three-year old son. 9
The RTC found the prosecution's version more credible, taking into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses and the theory of their case. The court found the narration of accused-appellant and Rosalinda, who is his girlfriend and mother of his child, unconvincing, because of its inconsistency with the common experience, observation of mankind and inconsistency with object evidence.
The RTC also gave great weight to the medical certificate that showed that the injuries suffered by AAA were injuries on the breasts, thighs, arms, wrists, face, near the neck area and lumbar region. The medical examination of her genitalia also showed the presence of sperm, and her hymen with fresh lacerations that were still bleeding. These injuries are all consistent with AAA's testimony. The lacerations in AAA's genitalia also belie accused-appellant's claim that the sexual intercourse was consensual.
Thus, the RTC rendered a Decision dated June 19, 2008, the fallo of which states:
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds and holds the accused LARRY MEKIPO ANGULO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE as defined and penalized under the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and conformable thereto, hereby sentences said accused to serve the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
The court further directs the accused to pay the offended party the sum of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) pesos as moral damages pursuant to the provisions of Article 2219 of the New Civil Code without subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency."
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, modifying it only insofar as the award of damages is concerned. The CA further ordered accused-appellant to pay AAA the sum of PhP75,000 as civil indemnity and PhP75,000 as moral damages, in line with recent jurisprudence, in its Decision dated July 13, 2011, the fallo of which states:
"WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES accused-appellant's appeal and AFFIRMS the Decision dated June 19, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. OS-04-325, with MODIFICATION and the Court directs accused-appellant to pay the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED."
The CA noted that accused-appellant's "sweetheart theory" was unsupported by evidence like love letters, mementos or pictures to prove that such a romantic relationship existed. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that they were lovers, rape can still be committed if he had carnal knowledge with AAA against her will.
The CA also dismissed accused-appellant's postulations that AAA's failure to shout for help or resist belied rape as there is no clear-cut behavior that can be expected of one who is being raped. The CA also did not consider accused-appellant's non-flight as conclusive of innocence and enough a reason to exculpate him from his criminal liability. Accused-appellant then appealed the CA's decision to this Court for review.
The appeal lacks merit.
At the outset, We note that the incident occurred in 2003, or after the repeal of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 that introduced new provisions in the RPC on rape which are now found in Articles 266-A to 266-D under Crimes Against Persons and which came into effect on October 22, 1997. 10 The RTC should have then applied Article 266-A rather than Article 335.
Be that as it may, the findings of fact of the RTC and CA still sufficiently support the conviction of and imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the accused-appellant for the crime of rape against AAA.
Article 266-A of the RPC pertinently reads:
ART. 266-A. Rape. When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
xxx xxx xxx
For a charge of rape under the above-mentioned provision to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA; and (2) he accompanied such act by force, threat or intimidation.
The first element of carnal knowledge is present because accused-appellant, in fact, admits that he had sexual intercourse with AAA. The point of contention is whether there was force or intimidation in the act, as AAA claims, or if it was consensual, as countered by accused-appellant.
We find that the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of force and intimidation.
As found by the RTC, and affirmed by the CA, AAA's testimony that she was physically subdued by accused-appellant, threatened and raped was more credible than accused-appellant's claims that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that AAA's injuries were sustained when he and AAA had a fight afterwards.
The results contained in the medical certificate issued to AAA are consistent as well with her testimony. Apart from the injuries sustained on her breasts, arms, thighs, wrists, face and lumbar region, the fresh and bleeding hymenal lacerations are clear indications of the presence of force and intimidation. These are physical evidence in direct contravention to accused-appellant's claims.
Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court. As a general rule, on the question whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. The trial court is, thus, in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies and to discern if the witnesses were telling the truth. Without any clear showing that the trial court and the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, the rule should not be disturbed. 11
Both courts below were thoroughly and morally convinced of the guilt of the accused-appellant. We see no cogent reason to disturb such findings as they were sufficiently supported by the evidence on record.
As regards the award of damages, We note no exemplary damages were awarded to AAA. In accordance with the case of People vs. Jugueta, 12 where it is stated that exemplary damages in rape cases are awarded for the inherent bestiality of the act committed even if no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, We hereby award P75,000.00 as exemplary damages to AAA.
In addition, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. 13
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-GR CEB-CR-HC No. 00882 dated July 13, 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED with modification that accused-appellant Larry Mekipo Angulo is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, as defined and penalized under the provisions of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and AAA is further awarded the amount of PhP75,000 as exemplary damages, and interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Justice E. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Justice P. Abarintos and Justice G. Ingles.
2. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg.
3. Pursuant to People vs. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, the real name and personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed in this Resolution.
4. CA Rollo, pp. 49-50.
5.Id. at pp. 50-51.
6.Id. at p. 72.
7.Id. at pp. 72-73.
8.Id. at pp. 73-74.
9.Id. at p. 74.
10.People v. Manjares, G.R. No. 185844, November 23, 2011.
11.People v. Burce, G.R. No. 201732, March 26, 2014.
12. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
13.People v. Sabal, G.R. No. 201861, June 2, 2014.