FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227422. March 18, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. VERGILIO BALUYOT ALIAS "BOY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 18, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227422 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Vergilio Baluyot alias "Boy", accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we find the appeal to be lacking in merit. We adopt the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals (CA).
As held by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, the fact of carnal knowledge by accused-appellant of BBB, 1 and also of his employment of force, threat, and intimidation in the commission of the crime, were sufficiently established by the direct, spontaneous, and categorical narration of BBB. There is no reason for this Court to doubt BBB's testimony considering that "[i]n rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not." 2 Moreover, "[w]hen a rape victim's testimony on the manner she was defiled is 'straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician as in this case, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape." 3 Besides, what accused-appellant offered in his defense were bare denials. "While denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases, bare assertions to this effect cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim." 4
Anent the crime committed against AAA, 5 the Court agrees with the CA and thus quotes its apt ratiocination on accused-appellant's conviction of attempted rape instead of rape by sexual assault, viz.:
Readily obvious from the foregoing is the absence of the slightest vaginal penetration. Dr. Camarillo in fact noted that AAA remains a virgin considering that her hymen was 'intact.' The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is 'the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice. The record, however, is bereft of evidence showing that accused-appellant inserted his penis, finger, or any object into AAA's mouth or anal orifice to consummate the crime, thus, the RTC erred in convicting him of consummated rape through sexual assault.
Be that as it may, accused-appellant remains criminally liable for the crime of attempted rape.
Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, there is an attempt when the offender commenced the commission of the crime directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. It has been held that when the 'touching' of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate, attempted rape is committed; otherwise, the crime committed is merely acts of lasciviousness.
Accused-appellant commenced the commission of AAA's rape by the following acts: undressing her; kissing her on her lips and different parts of her body; going on top of her and trying to insert his member into her vagina but was unable to do so. His unsuccessful attempt to insert his penis into her organ was confirmed by Dr. Camarillo's finding of the reddish appearance on the posterior part of her genitalia which may have borne the brunt of accused-appellant's unsuccessful thrusting. Taken as a whole, accused-appellant's foregoing acts show his unmistakable intent to penetrate AAA's vagina. 6
The other issues raised by accused-appellant pertain to the credibility of the testimonies of AAA and BBB. However, the trial court found the testimonies of the victims in these cases believable. Again, it bears stressing that "[i]t is doctrinally settled that the evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect, because it had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth. This assessment is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that if considered might affect the result of the case." 7 At any rate, the matters which accused-appellant labeled as unbelievable, i.e., that the victims did not resist the molestation; that they did not seem to suffer from disturbance after the alleged incidents; and that they did not account for the specific details of the commission of the crime; do not detract from the fact that the elements of rape and of attempted rape in these cases were sufficiently established. With respect to the affidavit of desistance executed by the mother of the victims, the Court notes the trial court's observation that the contents thereof were merely hearsay as they were not testified on by the affiant. 8 In any case, the CA correctly stated that:
x x x an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in court. Affidavits of desistance, especially those extracted from poor, unlettered, young and gullible witnesses, are generally frowned upon. Testimony solemnly given before a court of justice and subjected to the test of cross-examination cannot just be set aside. 9
Clearly, the Court entertains no doubt that accused-appellant committed attempted rape in Criminal Case No. 12654-B and rape in Criminal Case No. 12655-B.
The penalties as explained by the CA are as follows:
The penalty for attempted rape is two (2) degrees lower than the prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua for consummated rape of a minor under twelve but not below seven years of age. Two (2) degrees lower from reclusion perpetua is prision mayor, the range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve years. Absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the penalty to be imposed upon accused-appellant is prision mayor in its medium period while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional, the range of which is six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, in any of its periods.
xxx xxx xxx
In Criminal Case No. 12655-B, this Court sustains the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC. Article 266-B of the RPC is explicit that rape committed through force, threat, or intimidation is punishable by reclusion perpetua. 10
Notably, however, in the dispositive portion, the CA inadvertently imposed the penalty of six (6) years as minimum in Crim. Case No. 12654-B. Hence, the same must be modified to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
In addition, there is a need to modify the amounts of damages awarded in line with prevailing jurisprudence. In Criminal Case No. 12654-B where accused-appellant was found liable for attempted rape, the civil indemnity is decreased from P30,000.00 to P25,000.00; moral damages is maintained at P25,000.00; and (3) exemplary damages is increased from P10,000.00 to P25,000.00. 11 In Criminal Case No. 12655-B where accused-appellant was found liable for rape, (1) the civil indemnity and moral damages are both increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 each; and (2) the amount of exemplary damages is likewise increased from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00. 12 The CA's imposition of interest on the damages awarded from the date of finality of the judgment is maintained.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court ADOPTS the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. The assailed September 29, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06365, finding accused-appellant Vergelio Baluyot alias "Boy" GUILTY of attempted rape in Criminal Case No. 12654-B and of rape in Criminal Case No. 12655-B is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua in said cases, respectively; moreover, he is directed to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 each in Criminal Case No. 12654-B, and in Criminal Case No. 12655-B, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 each.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, And for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 5, 2004." People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 (2011).
2.People v. Moran, Jr., 546 Phil. 539, 555 (2007).
3.People v. Soria, 698 Phil. 676, 689 (2012).
4.People v. Bidoc, 536 Phil. 1178, 1196 (2006).
5.Supra note 1.
6. CA rollo, pp. 384-385.
7.People v. Bautista, 665 Phil. 815, 826 (2011), Citation omitted.
8. TSN, September 4, 2012, records of Crim. Case No. 12655-B, p. 154.
9. CA rollo, p. 387.
10.Id. at 388.
11.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
12.Id.