THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202208. September 24, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ANGELITO BUENAVISTA A.K.A. "JUN-JUN", respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 24, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202208 (People of the Philippines vs. Angelito Buenavista a.k.a. "Jun-Jun"). — On appeal is the January 27, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 254, of Las Piñas City finding appellant Angelito Buenavista guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape of AAA, 3 who was only six years old at the time of the rape.
Briefly stated, the prosecution evidence proved the following facts. On July 17, 2001 while AAA was playing with her friends, her neighbor, appellant herein, asked her to go with him to a grassy area. AAA initially refused appellant's request, but later agreed because appellant insisted, saying they will only be getting vegetables. When they got to the area, however, appellant laid AAA on the ground and immediately removed her shorts and underwear. He threatened that he will hit her with a piece of wood if she resisted, and then he inserted his penis inside her vagina. Appellant did the pumping motion and kissed AAA on the neck. AAA felt pain and her vagina bled. AAA noticed the blood in her vagina because appellant wiped it with his own brief. After satisfying his lust, appellant asked AAA to dress up and go home. 4 He also warned her not to tell anyone what happened. AAA ran home crying. Upon reaching home, AAA told her mother BBB that her vagina was painful. BBB saw blood going down her legs and asked who did that to her. AAA then told BBB about the rape. After quickly ensuring that appellant had not escaped, BBB went to the barangay hall and reported the incident. The barangay officials went to appellant's workplace and informed his employer about the complaint against appellant. Appellant's employer promptly surrendered appellant to the barangay officials. AAA, meanwhile, was brought to Camp Crame for medical treatment of her vagina which was still bleeding, and then to the PNP General Hospital at Camp Crame. 5 P/C Insp. Miriam Sta. Romana-Guialani, an obstetrician-gynecologist and child protection specialist, conducted a medical examination upon AAA. She reported that there was clear evidence of recent penetrating trauma upon AAA's hymen and that an object was forced through her hymen which caused a partial tear at the 2 o'clock position and a complete tear at the 6 o'clock position extending to just about half a centimeter from the rectum. She recommended emergency surgical procedure to stop the continuous bleeding. 6
In the face of the prosecution evidence, appellant interposed the defense of bare denial without elaborating where he was at the time of incident. 7
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape. It sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages. 8 The trial court ruled that the prosecution evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of appellant and to confirm his guilt for the crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. THCSEA
On appeal, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction for statutory rape but modified the amount of damages. The CA ordered appellant to pay instead P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 9 The CA held that the trial court correctly found that the elements of statutory rape had been duly established. The appellate court noted that the identity of appellant as the perpetrator of the rape was ascertained and carnal knowledge of AAA was sufficiently proven by the credible testimony of the victim AAA. The appellate court also noted that the allegation of rape was corroborated by an obstetrician-gynecologist and child protection specialist. As to appellant's argument that AAA's age was not proven, the CA noted that BBB testified in a clear and credible manner that AAA was only six years old at the time of the incident. Citing our ruling in People v. Pruna, 10 the CA held that such testimony was sufficient considering that AAA was alleged to be below seven years old and what was sought to be proved was that she was less than 12 years old. 11
Undaunted, appellant filed the present appeal insisting on his innocence.
After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court affirms appellant's conviction. We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to reverse appellant's conviction. There is no showing that either the trial court or the appellate court committed error in law and in its findings of fact as to AAA and BBB's credibility. It has been consistently held that in criminal 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 had the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not. Absent any showing in this case that the lower courts overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses, especially since this Court's own review of the records leads it to conclude that AAA and BBB's testimonies meet the test of credibility. 12 The Court notes that other than his claim of bare denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. On the contrary, the trial court found that AAA's testimony was straightforward, logical, and credible.
AAA's testimony proved that appellant had carnal knowledge of her. AAA positively testified that appellant inserted his penis inside her vagina. Also, AAA's testimony was corroborated by the medical finding that there was clear evidence of sexual abuse or rape. The fact that AAA was a child under 12 years old was likewise sufficiently proven. That AAA was six years old at the time of the commission of the crime was alleged in the Information. AAA's mother, BBB, also testified that AAA was six years old when she was raped. In People v. Pruna, 13 we laid down the guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or a qualifying circumstance. Under No. 3 (b) of the guidelines laid down in People v. Pruna, the testimony of AAA's mother, BBB, that she was six years old at the time of the commission of the crime is sufficient for the purpose of holding appellant liable for statutory rape, or rape of a girl below 12 years of age as AAA was alleged to be below seven years old and what is sought to be proven is that she was a minor under 12 years old.
However, except as to amount of exemplary damages, we hereby reinstate the award of damages made by the RTC as the same is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. 14 Also, consistent with current policy, we likewise deem proper the imposition of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded in this case.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 27, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04443 affirming the conviction of appellant Angelito Buenavista for statutory rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the award of civil indemnity and moral damages made by the Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED and UPHELD. Appellant is likewise ordered to pay interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
With costs against the appellant. (Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated Member per Raffle dated September 3, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Antonio L. Villamor concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04443.
2. CA rollo, pp. 29-42. Penned by Presiding Judge Gloria Butay Aglugub. The decision was rendered on February 1, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 01-0520.
3. The victim's real name and personal circumstances and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity as well as those of her immediate family are withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006).
4. Rollo, p. 3; TSN, December 13, 2004, pp. 4-18; TSN, May 23, 2006, pp. 5-7, 13-15 & 24-28.
5. Id. at 3-4; id. at 18-22; TSN, October 11, 2007, pp. 8-12; TSN, October 17, 2006, pp. 7-8.
6. Id. at 4; TSN, June 14, 2005, pp. 14-16, 24 & 28-31; records, p. 199.
7. Id. at 5; TSN, November 19, 2009, pp. 3-5.
8. CA rollo, p. 42.
9. Rollo, p. 14.
10. 439 Phil. 440, 470-471 (2002).
11. Rollo, pp. 8-11.
12. People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
13. Supra note 10, at 474.
14. People v. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 305, 318-319.