THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208715. April 21, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GONZALO BANTOLO Y QUIATCHON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 21, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208715 (People of the Philippines v. Gonzalo Bantolo y Quiatchon). — On December 17, 2010 the Deputy Provincial Prosecutor charged the accused Gonzalo Bantolo y Quiatchon (Gonzalo) with two counts of rape under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act 7610 1 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zambales, Branch 69, in Criminal Cases RTC 6219-I and RTC 6220-I. 2
Fara, 3 a child of 11 years, testified that one evening in March 2004 her father, the accused Gonzalo, came home drunk. While she and her siblings were asleep, she was awakened when she felt someone caressing her breast down to her private parts. As she opened her eyes, she saw her father on top of her. She kicked him but he threatened to kill her if she was to tell anyone about it. Gonzalo undressed and abused her. From then on, Gonzalo would abuse her every time he gets drunk until she was 14 years old and had started to menstruate, at which time Gonzalo stopped. She remembered that the last time he abused her was on February 7, 2008. 4
No longer able to keep her anguish, she told her older sister about those incidents. On June 17, 2008 having heard of them, her mother accompanied Fara to the police station where she executed a sworn statement against Gonzalo. A medico-legal officer then examined her and found that she was physically in a non-virgin state. 5 aTIAES
Accused Gonzalo testified on his defense. He denied having raped Fara, he being somewhere else during the time of the incidents. 6
On August 19, 2011 the RTC found Gonzalo guilty of qualified statutory rape in Criminal Case RTC 6219-I and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. It further ordered him to pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. 7
The RTC acquitted accused Gonzalo, however, in Criminal Case RTC 6220-I on the grounds of reasonable doubt. The RTC said that the prosecution failed to prove with moral certainty that the accused raped the victim on February 7, 2008. While the victim's account of March 2004 incident was clear and categorical, she failed to supply material details as to how the alleged rape on February 7, 2008 took place. The RTC found Fara's testimony on that alleged incident too general and merely repeated the details of the previous incident. 8
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 05312 but the latter court rendered judgment on May 27, 2013, affirming the RTC Decision. 9 Accused Gonzalo filed a notice of appeal on June 6, 2013 before the CA, hence the present appeal to this Court. 10
The core issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that accused Gonzalo raped Fara with force and intimidation that evening in March 2004.
The Court finds no reason to reverse the decisions of the RTC and the CA. The prosecution evidence shows that accused Gonzalo had carnal knowledge of Fara, her own daughter of 11 years, and he accomplished this by using force and intimidation. His defense of alibi, inherently weak as it is, has no chance against Fara's detailed narration of the incident, corroborated by the medical findings. EICDSA
Gonzalo claims that in March 2004 he worked as caretaker of the land owned by Nestor Español in Pagnaw. Gonzalo maintained that he and his sons, Sandy and Hener, lived in a hut on the farm. He insisted he never left the farm on that day. 11 But this does not inspire belief since Gonzalo did not even bother to call his two sons to corroborate his testimony. What is more, the farm he was supposedly working on was in Candelaria, Zambales 12 while Fara was staying in Sitio Kuwala Lako, Barangay Sinabacan, also in Candelaria, Zambales. 13 In other words, the two places were in the same town, rendering it possible for him to commit the crime in one place and not be missed in the other. 14
Accused Gonzalo questions the admissibility of the medical certificate on the ground that this was neither identified nor testified by Dr. Jude Doble who examined Fara. But, as the Court said in People v. Ferrer, 15 the testimony of a medical expert respecting the victim's injuries is not indispensable in the prosecution for rape. No law requires a medical examination for the successful prosecution of rape. The testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. The ruling in People v. Banig 16 is to the same tenor.
The Court is satisfied that neither the RTC nor the CA erred in finding accused Gonzalo guilty as charged. The RTC had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and closely assessing their credibility and truthfulness. The CA's affirmation of the RTC finding, on the other hand, enjoys great weight and persuasive effect.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 27, 2013 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 05312, which upheld the Regional Trial Court's Decision dated August 19, 2011 in Criminal Case RTC 6219-I that found accused Gonzalo Bantolo y Quiatchon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of qualified statutory rape and sentenced him accordingly.
SO ORDERED." CSHcDT
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Records, pp. 4-5; Department of Justice, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Resolution dated December 17, 2010 for I.S. 08-June-611-I/612-I.
2. Id. at 2-3, Information for Criminal Case RTC 6219-I dated December 17, 2010. The Court observed that the said information refers to one count of rape allegedly committed on March 2004, and there is no corresponding information on record for the alleged February 7, 2008 incident. However the RTC and the CA both quoted the Information for Criminal Case RTC 6220-I in their respective decisions.
3. Pursuant to Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules; The real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her to protect her privacy and that of her family. (People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 [2006]).
4. Records, pp. 6-7.
5. Id. at 9.
6. Id. at 74-75.
7. Id. at 82-89.
8. Id. at 89.
9. CA rollo, pp. 141-151.
10. Id. at 152.
11. Records, p. 74; TSN, August 10, 2011, p. 4.
12. Id.
13. Records, p. 34, Testimony of the victim taken on May 30, 2011.
14. See People v. Tubat, G.R. No. 183093, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 712, 722.
15. 415 Phil. 188, 199 (2001).
16. G.R. No. 177137, August 23, 2012, 679 SCRA 133.