THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225220. November 29, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JIMMY ARCAYOS y MONTESCLAROS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 29, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225220 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Jimmy Arcayos y Montesclaros, accused-appellant) — We resolve the appeal assailing the 11 May 2015 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01599 affirming accused-appellant Jimmy Arcayos' (Arcayos) conviction for the crime of rape.
On 29 September 2008, Arcayos was charged with the crime of rape before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 of Ormoc City (RTC). The information reads:
That on or about the 26th day of September 2008, in the Municipality of [X X X], Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd designs and by means of force, violence, and intimidation did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], 2 against her will and without her consent, and with the attendant aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the crime of rape was committed with the use of deadly weapon, a handgun of unknown caliber. 3
After Arcayos pleaded not guilty, 4 pre-trial and trial on the merits followed.
On 26 September 2008, on or about 1:00 A.M., while AAA and two (2) other companions were sleeping on the second floor of a house in Sitio X X X, Leyte, Arcayos entered their room. While inside, Arcayos woke them up, told them to keep quiet, and introduced himself as a policeman. He then ordered them to go down to the ground floor. At first they objected but when Arcayos pointed his gun at them, they heeded and proceeded to the master's bedroom downstairs. Thereafter, AAA's companions were asked to leave the room; leaving AAA behind. Arcayos told her companions not to make any noise, otherwise he would kill AAA.
Being alone in the room, Arcayos told AAA to undress herself. When AAA refused, Arcayos threatened that if she would not follow his order, he would kill her companions. When Arcayos pointed his gun at her, AAA, out of fear, undressed herself. She was made to lie down. After removing his undergarments, Arcayos mounted AAA and began to kiss her body. Since AAA felt numb, Arcayos was able to insert his penis into her vagina and to make push and pull movements for about ten (10) seconds. Satisfied, Arcayos stood up and told AAA to put on her clothes.
Arcayos and AAA went out of the room to go to the bodega. He then led AAA and her companions to the room on the second floor and instructed them to remain silent. When Arcayos had left the house, AAA informed her companions what happened to her.
On the same day, AAA submitted herself to a medical examination and reported the incident to the police. The medico-legal officer found erythema and abrasion on AAA's posterior part of the vestibule, possibly caused by a blunt object inserted into her vagina, and fresh superficial hymenal laceration at 1 o'clock position. She said that it was possible that the laceration was caused by the insertion of a hard object with a smooth surface such as an erect penis.
Arcayos, on the other hand, denied the charges against him, claiming that he was asleep in his residence on the eve of the incident. He woke up early the following day to harvest palay. When he went home in the afternoon, Arcayos' cousin informed him that he was a suspect in a rape incident.
To confront these charges, Arcayos went to the barangay hall where he met with his complainant, barangay officials, and police officers. After the confrontation, Arcayos was put in jail even when he protested that he was innocent. Inside the detention cell, he was forced to admit in committing the rape but he stuck to his alibi.
In its 3 December 2012 decision, the RTC found Arcayos guilty as charged. It gave full credence to AAA's testimony and rejected the appellant's denial. Arcayos was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA civil indemnity and damages, to wit:
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, this Court finds the accused JIMMY ARCAYOS y Montesclaros guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing the crime charge of rape and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. He is also ordered to pay the private offended party AAA the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. 5
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed Arcayos' conviction. It rejected the attack on AAA's credibility, noting that her testimony was candid, unequivocal, and corroborated. Arcayos was positively identified not just by AAA but also by her companions. Moreover, the CA said that the physical evidence, i.e., the medico-legal report, corroborates AAA's story that she was raped.
Furthermore, the CA held that his denial and alibi, being an inherently weak defense could not prevail over AAA's positive and categorical testimony. It did not give much merit to Arcayos' claim that he had voluntarily surrendered because he submitted himself to the police only to clear the matter and to know why the reason why they were looking for him.
The CA's disposition reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Regional Trial Court decision in Criminal Case No. R-ORM-08-00175 dated December 3, 2013 which found accused-appellant Jimmy Arcayos y Montesclaros GUILTY for the crime of rape, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that: (a) the award of moral damages and civil indemnity are decreased from Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) to Fifty-Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00); (b) to pay AAA exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos is increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00); and (c) interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 6
The case is now before us for final review.
OUR RULING
After examining the records, we have no doubt that Arcayos raped AAA. We find AAA's testimony convincing and straightforward, especially when her version of what transpired was corroborated by her companions. We, therefore, have no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of AAA's testimony, more so where the said findings were affirmed by the CA.
It is settled that when the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. 7 Inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, should there be any, do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. 8
The trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility is given great weight and is even conclusive and binding. 9 In People v. Sapigao, Jr., 10 the Court explained:
It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the record so that all that the appellate court can see are the cold words of the witness contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, "There is an inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of accuracy what credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the words spoken by him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the words. However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the pressure of a skillful cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on the stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is exposed in the very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence they can never be considered by the appellate court." 11
As the RTC and the CA have done, we reject the appellant's denial. Not only are denial and alibi inherently weak defenses, they also cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the offended party.
Alibi is one of the weakest defenses not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate and difficult to check or rebut. 12 In the case of alibi, it is elementary case law that the requirements of time and place be strictly complied with by the defense; that the accused must not only show he was somewhere else, but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. 13 In this case, Arcayos stipulated during pre-trial that he was at the same barangay on our about the time the incident happened. 14 Thus, his alibi that he was asleep on 26 September 2008 failed to show that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime.
For conviction for the crime of rape, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished: (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. Looking back at the evidence on record, we conclude that the prosecution has proven all the elements of the crime of rape.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, we AFFIRM the 11 May 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01599 in toto.
SO ORDERED." (J. Gesmundo, on leave)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-18; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, and concurred in by Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.
2. Pursuant to R.A. No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes;" R.A. No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes;" Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children," effective 15 November 2004; and People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006), the real name of the rape victim is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, is not disclosed.
3. Records, p. 1.
4.Id. at 28.
5. Records, p. 17.
6. CA rollo, p. 17.
7.People v. Ocdol, 741 Phil. 701, 714 (2014).
8.Id.
9.People v. Dion, 668 Phil. 333, 348 (2011).
10. 614 Phil. 589 (2009).
11.Id. at 599.
12.People v. Palomar, 343 Phil. 628, 663 (1997).
13.People v. Pili, 351 Phil. 1046, 1068-1069 (1998).
14. Records, p. 34.