THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208525. April 23, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO BANGONA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 23, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208525 (People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Bangona). * — The Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Quirino filed two amended Informations for two counts of rape against accused-appellant Ricardo Bangona (Ricardo) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maddela, Quirino, in Criminal Cases 38-236 and 38-237.
The prosecution's evidence consists of the testimonies of PJ, 1 the victim, and Dr. Don Francis Juguilon. PJ testified that she attended Grade Four at the Maddela Central School with the help of accused Ricardo and his wife Emilia, who was her father's sister. PJ and her cousins Marine Bangona (Marine) and Ricardo Bangona, Jr. (Ricardo, Jr.) boarded in a one-room house near their school. 2HITEaS
PJ recalled that at 11:30 a.m. on September 6, 2004, she went back to their boarding house and cooked their meals at the kitchen. When she was about to enter their room to wait for her cousins' return, she saw Ricardo naked and seated on a cot. Ricardo pulled her by the waist, laid her on the cot, removed her pants and underwear, and ravished her. 3 Ricardo raped her in the same manner on September 29, 2004. 4 PJ kept these to herself out of fear since her parents had always told her not to do any act that would bring dishonor to their family. But PJ told her cousin Randy Ganaat about it and this led to the indictment of Ricardo through the help of their uncle Andrew Dumulag. 5
Dr. Juguilon testified that she examined PJ and found that her hymen was no longer intact and that there were lacerations on the labia minora at 3, 5, 6, 10 and 12 o'clock positions. 6 The doctor gave the view that these injuries appear to have been caused by a blunt and hard object like a male organ. 7
Ricardo, Marine, Rosita Barroga, Jaquelyn G. Pastor and Pedro Ngitit testified for the defense. Ricardo denied the charges against him. He claimed that on September 6, 2004 he was at Ambasan, Lamut, Ifugao, for 13 hours to deliver a carabao that needed to be butchered so the meat could be served at his uncle Bernardino Bernardez's wake. On September 29, 2004 he was at Jose Ancheta, Maddela, Quirino, settling a dispute between Rene Umungal and Ambrocio Anggaban. Ricardo theorized that Dumulag who had a grudge against him was using PJ to get even. 8
Marine corroborated Ricardo's testimony. He testified in essence that Ricardo did not visit their boarding house either on September 6 or 29, 2004. There was no need for such visit since they usually went home to Jose Ancheta, Maddela, Quirino, every Friday. 9 Barroga, on the other hand, related that she did not see Ricardo visit his children at the boarding house, but there were times that his wife came over to see their children. She recalled that on September 29, 2004 PJ arrived at the boarding house at around 11:00 a.m. and left at 1:00 p.m. 10cDTHIE
Pastor testified that PJ was in school on September 6 and 29, 2004. Ngitit corroborated Ricardo's claim that he was at Ambasan, Lamut, Ifugao on September 6, 2004. Ngitit testified that he visited Bernardez's wake and saw Ricardo bring a carabao with him. 11
On January 26, 2011 the RTC rendered judgment finding Ricardo guilty of the two counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages also for each count. The RTC held that the prosecution proved all the elements of the crimes charged and rejected accused Ricardo's defense of alibi. It further held that the relationship between the accused and the victim is similar to that of a father and his daughter since Ricardo exercised moral ascendancy and influence over PJ.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the trial court in its Decision dated July 31, 2012. The CA ruled that Ricardo's arguments were not convincing. His claim that he was in Lamut, Ifugao failed to convince that court that it was impossible for him to have raped PJ. Ngitit only testified that he saw Ricardo at around 7:00 a.m. but did not give any account of Ricardo's whereabouts afterwards. The same is true with his defense in the second rape. The evidence of the defense failed to prove the physical impossibility of Ricardo's presence at PJ's boarding house.
When what is in question is the credibility of the witnesses, the Court usually gives full weight and credit to the findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, because it had the first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor and manner of the witnesses when they testified. 12 Here, the Court sees no reason to depart from such findings especially since they are supported by the evidence on record. The alleged inconsistencies in her narration tended more to bolster PJ's credibility as these are earmarks of an unrehearsed testimony.
Accused Ricardo argues that PJ's narration cannot be believed since it contravened human experience. Since Ricardo did not threaten her with some weapon, PJ could have cried for help, run, or defended herself. But jurisprudence teaches that the workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable, such that people react differently to startling situations. 13 Consequently, that PJ did not follow the scenarios that Ricardo suggests does not make her testimony unworthy of belief. PJ's failure to resist his uncle could easily be explained by the fact that he had overpowering moral ascendancy over her. He and his wife were after all spending for her schooling. This and his superior physical strength were sufficient to cow her into submission to his bestial desires. 14
Ricardo claims further that Dumulag instigated the filing of the rape charges against him due to a harbored grudge. But this cannot be believed since it is quite unnatural for an uncle to use his own niece as an engine of malice and sacrifice her to public ridicule if he, in fact, had not been motivated by an honest desire to have the culprit punished. 15EHSIcT
Ricardo's claim that it was physically impossible for him to be at PJ's boarding house on the dates in question is hard to believe. Settled is the rule that for an alibi to prosper, it should be satisfactorily shown that the accused was at some other place during the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to have been where it was committed. 16 While it may be true that Ricardo was in Barangay Ambasan, Lamut, Ifugao on September 6, 2004 and in Jose Ancheta, Maddela, Quirino on September 29, 2004, such facts do not negate the commission of rape as these places and the boarding house can be easily negotiated by public transportation.
Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is warranted in order to serve as an example to those who may have aberrant sexual tendencies. 17
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04884 with the MODIFICATION that, in addition to the damages awarded below, the Court DIRECTS accused-appellant Ricardo Bangona to pay the victim P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also referred to as Ricardo Bangaona in some parts of the records.
1. The real name of the victim is withheld pursuant to Republic Act 7610 and Republic Act 9262.
2. TSN, October 11, 2006, pp. 4-5.
3. Id. at 9-18.
4. Id. at 19-25.
5. Id. at 26-27.
6. TSN, December 10, 2007, p. 6. See also: Medico-Legal Report, records, p. 5.
7. Id.
8. TSN, June 23, 2010, pp. 3-15.
9. TSN, October 21, 2008, pp. 11-13; TSN, August 4, 2009, pp. 4-6.
10. TSN, November 11, 2009, pp. 6-7.
11. TSN, March 10, 2010, pp. 4-5.
12. People v. Federico, 454 Phil. 814, 823 (2003), citing People v. Bontuan, 437 Phil. 233, 242 (2002).
13. People v. Cabradilla, 218 Phil. 382, 388 (1984).
14. See People v. Sagaral, 335 Phil. 331, 341 (1997).
15. People v. Dayna, 421 Phil. 123, 132 (2001).
16. People v. Villaraza, 394 Phil. 175, 195 (2000).
17. People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184958, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 280, 294.