SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218276. November 7, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ELMO CATATUYA y PASCUA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 November 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218276 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,versus ELMO CATATUYA y PASCUA, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the Decision 1 dated June 26, 2014 (Decision) of the Court of Appeals, Eleventh (11th) Division (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06213. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Elmo Catatuya y Pascua (accused-appellant) is indeed guilty of the crime of Rape charged against him. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, there being no supplemental briefs filed, were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 2 Thus, when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the victim, the findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. 3 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the RTC's 4 appreciation of the evidence, which was affirmed in toto by the CA.
In the same vein, accused-appellant's defenses of alibi and denial cannot outweigh the candid and straightforward testimony of private complainant AAA 5 (AAA) that he indeed had sexual intercourse with her through force and intimidation, namely, by boxing her stomach three times to weaken her and by threatening to kill her if she reported the incident. She likewise positively identified accused-appellant as her assailant because she was able to turn on the lights in her room when her assailant was about to leave.
The Court has oft pronounced that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on the one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 6
Further, the continuing case law is that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. 7
In the present case, accused-appellant was within the immediate vicinity of the place of the crime at the time it was committed. As the CA noted:
x x x In this case, We note that the respective houses of AAA and accused-appellant, as well as the place where the wedding ceremony was conducted are all located in Pieza, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. In fact, accused-appellant, himself, testified that the distance between the wedding place and house of AAA is only about 700 meters and it would only take him fifteen to twenty minutes to go to AAA's house from the wedding place by walking. x x x 8
It was therefore not physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time the rape happened. His defense of alibi thus fails to convince compared with the positive identification by AAA that it was him who committed the rape.
However, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, as modified by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 9 the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages should be increased to P75,000.00. The legal interest is also modified to six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. 10
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated June 26, 2014 of the Court of Appeals, Eleventh (11th) Division, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06213. The Decision finding accused-appellant Elmo Catatuya y Pascua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, defined and punished under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is ordered to pay the private complainant SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
4. See Decision dated March 7, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 29, in Criminal Case No. 6000, penned by Acting Presiding Judge Rogelio P. Corpuz; CA rollo, pp. 42-46.
5. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
6.People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527 (2013).
7.People v. Desalisa, 451 Phil. 869, 876 (2003).
8.Rollo, p. 15.
9.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
10.Id. at 854.