FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 194443. April 7, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO CABANSAG AND FLORENTINO CABANSAG, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 7, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194443 (People of the Philippines v. Pedro Cabansag and Florentino Cabansag). — Before this Court is an appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision 1 dated 22 March 2010, which affirmed the judgement 2 of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 68, finding appellants guilty of statutory rape.
In brief, the prosecution proved the following facts: 10-year-old AAA and her young siblings, CCC and DDD, were taking shelter at the house of their uncle, appellant Pedro Cabansag (Pedro), in Barangay (Brgy.) Capantolan, Sual, Pangasinan one rainy night in February 2006. They were sleeping on the floor when AAA was roused by the arrival of Pedro, who was drunk then. He went straight to AAA, pinned her between his legs, undressed her and carried out his bestial act despite her plea that he spare her. When it was over, AAA awakened CCC. The latter lit an oil lamp and saw Pedro still on top of AAA. Pedro ordered CCC to put out the light but CCC, instead, ran home. Afterwards, Pedro left his house. AAA did not immediately relate the incident to her mother, BBB. 3
Sometime in March 2006, appellant Florentino Cabansag (Florentino) enticed AAA with chocolates so she would go to his house in Brgy. Capantolan. Inside his house, Florentino laid AAA on the floor and removed her lower garments. AAA fearfully told Florentino "I do not like it anymore Uncle", but the latter mounted her anyway and raped her. After some time, he stood up and dressed. AAA also put on her lower garments and went home. She immediately related what happened at Florentino's house to BBB. The father and uncle of AAA subsequently brought her to the hospital for examination on 25 May 2006. The medical examination showed that she had, an old hymenal laceration at three o'clock position. 4DcTaEH
Consequently, appellants were separately charged with rape. Both of them pleaded not guilty to the crime. 5 During the joint trial, Pedro denied that he committed the rape and averred that, in February 2006, he was working as a tenant in Telbang, Alaminos, Pangasinan, some four (4) kilometers away from Sual. 6 Florentino's sole defense was also denial, claiming that AAA never went to his house in March 2006, and that their houses were 1,000 meters apart. 7 BBB corroborated her brothers' defenses and refuted AAA's testimony. BBB added that her common-law husband, AAA's father, had abandoned them and instigated the filing of the charges against her brothers to evade responsibility for her and their children. 8
The RTC rendered a Joint Decision finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape. The RTC sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. 9 The RTC held that AAA's testimony, though imperfect, was categorical and convincing, whereas appellants' denials were uncorroborated. The RTC observed that AAA's claim of sexual violation was corroborated by medical findings. It also held that it was unlikely that she had merely concocted her story since it was not shown that she was exposed to any means by which obscene shows were exhibited. Further, Pedro failed to prove his alibi, as the impossibility of his presence on the night when AAA was raped was not shown with certainty. Thus, the RTC ruled that the appellants' defenses deserved scant consideration. 10
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Decision of the RTC, but increased the award of moral damages to P75,000. The CA sustained the findings of the RTC and further ruled that the inconsistencies in AAA's testimony were minor and did not impair its credibility. Rather, the slightly conflicting statements only erased any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. 11
After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the Decision of the CA. It is settled that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that the evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. Moreover, testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. Faultless testimony cannot be expected of a child-victim, for she may be trying not to recall, much less, recount in open court every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and appalling outrage she has gone through, as it would be too painful to remember. 12DHCSTa
Thus, the Court finds no error in the appellants' conviction based solely on AAA's testimony, which was corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician. One may be convicted of rape based solely on the testimony of the victim, as long as the testimony is competent and credible. 13 In stark contrast, Pedro's alibi that he was in another place about four kilometers away from the scene of the crime when it was committed is untenable. Four kilometers was not too far as to foreclose the probability of his presence in the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. 14 For alibi to prosper, one must prove not only presence somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for that person to have been at the scene of the crime or within its immediate vicinity. 15
However, the Court finds error in the amount of damages awarded by both lower courts. It is settled that the victim in statutory rape is entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000, moral damages of P50,000, and exemplary damages of P30,000.00. 16
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 22 March 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03397 affirming the conviction of appellants Pedro Cabansag and Florentino Cabansag is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants are each ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages, plus interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-16; Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Francisco P. Acosta concurring.
2. CA rollo, 17-31; Penned by Judge Georgina D. Hidalgo.
3. Id. at 19-20.
4. Id. at 20.
5. Id. at 18.
6. Id. at 23.
7. Id. at 23-24.
8. Id. at 22.
9. Id. at 31.
10. CA rollo, pp. 27-29.
11. Rollo, p. 14.
12. People v. Puerta, 416 Phil. 177, 191 (2001).
13. People v. Guambor, 465 Phil. 671, 678 (2004).
14. See People v. Alcoreza, 419 Phil. 105 (2001).
15. See People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 187740, 10 April 2013, 695 SCRA 545.
16. See People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 175876, 20 February 2013, 691 SCRA 324.