THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200533. November 25, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL B. COLORADO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 25, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200533 (People of the Philippines v. Joel B. Colorado). — This deals with the appeal under Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, and under Section 2, Rule 124, in relation to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, praying that the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), promulgated on June 23, 2011, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, be reversed and set aside.
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, as the alleged victim is his own sister who was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. The Regional Trial Court of Burgos, Pangasinan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged based on the prosecution's evidence that sometime in December 2002, accused-appellant, who is the older brother of the 13-year old female victim, succeeded with his lewd desires by lying on top of his sister and inserting his penis into her vagina. The crime was committed while the siblings' parents were out for the night to attend a wedding, so the victim was left in the house with only her three brothers, accused-appellant among them. The RTC rendered judgment sentencing accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA, assailing the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies and arguing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On June 23, 2011, the CA promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the conviction of accused-appellant by clarifying that the sentence imposed should be reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and increasing the RTC award for damages, by ordering accused-appellant to pay the victim the additional amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and increasing moral damages to P75,000.00. SDHTEC
Thus, this appeal, where accused-appellant reiterates the arguments presented before the CA, i.e., that the victim's testimony, that the rape was committed while her two other brothers were in close proximity, and that she could not remember the exact date of the commission of the crime in the month of December 2002, are badges of falsity. However, after a judicious review of the records, the Court finds no reversible error in the CA judgment.
It must be emphasized that the Court has always abided by the principle that factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect. 2 Thus, generally, the Court will not recalibrate and reexamine evidence that had been analyzed and ruled upon by the trial court and affirmed by the CA. The Court has ruled that "the nearby presence of people is no guarantee that rape will not and cannot be committed, lust being no respecter of time and place. The Court has more than once observed that rape may even be committed in a room which the victim might be sharing with others." 3 In several cases, 4 the Court convicted an accused despite the victim's failure to remember the exact date of the commission of the crime, as this does not diminish the credibility of the witness and her testimony.
However, under prevailing jurisprudence, the following are the minimum indemnity and damages where the death penalty is imposable but could not be so imposed under present law: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. 5
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision dated June 23, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03872 by increasing the award for damages, thus, ORDERING accused-appellant Joel Colorado to PAY the victim P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, reckoned from the date of finality of judgment, until fully paid. (Jardeleza, J., no part; Del Castillo, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated September 1, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring.
2.People v. Mamaruncas, et al., 680 Phil. 192, 211 (2012).
3.People v. Rodavia, 426 Phil. 707, 722 (2002).
4.People v. Matunhay, 628 Phil. 208 (2000); People vs. Nazareno, 574 Phil. l75 (2008).
5.People v. Tabayan, G.R. No. 190620, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 587, 607.