THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214471. March 14, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MACKY DE GUZMAN y MENESES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 214471 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MACKY DE GUZMAN y MENESES, Accused-Appellant.) — The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credit, as her willingness to undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her complaint. 1
This appeal assails the decision promulgated on March 3, 2014, 2 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the decision dated March 31, 2013 3 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Dagupan City finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 2012-0335-D.
Antecedents
The CA summarized the factual and procedural antecedents of the case in the following manner:
In an Information for Criminal Case No. 2012-0335-D dated June 5, 2012, appellant was indicted before the Dagupan City RTC for Qualified Rape against his blood relative, AAA. The accusatory portion of the said Information reads:
That on or about April 8, 2012 in the afternoon in the house of accused located in Brgy. Primicias, Mapandan, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused being a blood relative, thru force and intimidation did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abuse AAA, a minor three (3) years old (DOB-27 January 2009) by inserting his penis inside her vagina and then licking it, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Art. 266-A(1) sub-par. a of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Art. 266-B, sub-par. 5 thereof."
The Office of the Solicitor General, in its Brief for the People, adopted the findings of facts of the trial court, to wit:
First witness, victim/complainant AAA, 3 years old, a child, and a resident of ____________, Pangasinan. She averred that she knows the accused "Lolo Macky." She nodded her head when the Court Interpreter pointed to a man seated on the first bench in front who, when asked his name, he answered "Macky de Guzman." She claimed that the accused made "tusok" on her vagina by declaring "Tinusok" then pointed at her vagina using her finger. She was shown a drawing of a naked girl, and demonstrated what Lolo Macky did as he made "tusok" on her vagina. She pointed to the penis in the naked drawing of a boy. She claimed that she is sure that her Lobo Macky used his penis and not his finger in inserting the same inside her vagina. She was asked by the Court if she knows what is "pek-pek," and she pointed at her vagina. She was also asked the whereabouts of her mother, and she answered that she is working in Saudi Arabia, and her father is working in Riyadh. She has two older brothers.
When her mother confronted her of what the accused did to her, she said her mother cried. She was brought to the doctor and medically examined because of her complaint "tinusok ang pekpek ko." And because of the incident, her mother told her not to go near Lolo Macky anymore.
She further declared that the incident happened when her Lolo Macky brought her to the guava tree. He removed her panty and then he removed his brief and inserted his penis inside her vagina. She also claimed that they were sitting when her Lolo Macky did that to her, and that her Lolo Macky is bad. Her Kuya A-Jay was looking for her and it was at the guava tree where he made "tusok" on her "pekpek." She identified a drawing of a hand and a foot, and when asked what her Lolo Macky used in making "tusok" her "pekpek," she pointed at the drawing of the penis (anatomical chart).
On re-direct, she was asked how did her Mama BBB come to know of what happened to her, she answered that when she was with her Mommy in ____________, Pangasinan, and while her mother was washing her private parts, she told her it hurts. When she was asked what happened, she told her mother of the incident, saying "tinusok nya po" (witness pointing at the accused). That after her Lolo Macky "tusok" her, he gave her a guava.
The findings of Dr. Brenda Tumacder (Dr. Tumacder) who conducted the medical examination on AAA, were contained in a medico-legal report. The report was to the following effect:
xxx xxx xxx
Findings
xxx xxx xxx
Hymen: (+) Healed lacerations at 3 and 6 o'clock positions.
xxx xxx xxx
Impressions
> medical evaluation showed evidence of sexual abuse.
xxx xxx xxx.
The defense presented the accused himself who testified on his own behalf.
His testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows:
The only witness is MACKY DE GUZMAN, 50 years old, single, farmer and a resident of Primicias, Mapandan, Pangasinan.
He testified under oath that AAA or the victim in this case is his grand daughter (sic), being the daughter of the daughter-in-law of his sister. On April 8, 2012, he was in their house in Primicias, Mapandan, Pangasinan.
That on the date of the incident, the victim was residing in their house as she is being taken cared of by his sister where he also resides. He denied the allegation leveled against him claiming that the victim was the one who went near him but he did not do anything. The victim also asked from him one peso so she could buy food, and he gave her and she left thereafter. He was informed by his mother that a case was filed against him, and that he never expected that the private complainant would file a case against him. He does not know of any reason why her grand daughter (sic) would file any complaint against him, because he has no grudge against her family. However he admitted that he did not deny nor told and/or claimed his innocence to anyone. He claimed that he only told his mother and his older sister that he has a case. He did not confront the mother of the victim. He told the Police that he did not do anything to the victim, but he claimed the Police did not do anything. 4
xxx xxx xxx.
After trial, the RTC convicted the accused. It ruled that the testimony of the victim that he had raped her was credible; that the minor inconsistencies in her testimony did not necessarily destroy her credibility because such inconsistencies did not concern the elements of rape; that with the Prosecution having established all the elements of the crime charged, and the accused having admitted her minority at the time of the rape, he was guilty of qualified rape.
The RTC disposed thusly:
WHEREFORE, premises considered the Court finds accused Macky de Guzman y Meneses GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and is hereby ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.5
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction. It concurred with the RTC's assessment of the three-year old victim's credibility after noting that the accused did not even ascribe any reason, let alone malice or ill-will, that had motivated her to implicate him in the commission of the very serious crime with a fabricated tale; that contrary to his submissions, the Prosecution established that he had carnal knowledge of her; that her recollection, corroborated by the physical evidence, belied his submissions in his defense; and that his denial of the accusation, being self-serving and easily concocted, did not inspire belief. Nonetheless, it modified the damages by imposing interest of 6% per annum on them, and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated January 31, 2013 of the Dagupan City RTC, Branch 43 in Criminal Case No. 2012-0335-D is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by holding accused MACKY DE GUZMAN y MENESES liable for interest of 6% per annum on the monetary awards reckoned from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.6
Hence, this appeal, in which the parties waived the filing of supplemental briefs, and reiterated their submissions through their briefs filed in the CA. 7
Specifically, the accused contends that the Prosecution did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, insisting that there was no competent evidence showing that he had carnal knowledge of the victim; that the findings of the medico-legal officer that the lacerated hymen of the victim had been caused by sexual abuse were not conclusive considering that such injury could be sustained in a manner other than by sexual abuse; and that her testimony was incredible in view of the inherent impossibility of her version, particularly the claim that they both climbed the guava tree and then he abused her upon reaching the top of the tree.
Ruling of the Court
The Court DISMISSES the appeal for its lack of merit.
In considering and resolving appeals of rape convictions, the Court has followed three guidelines, namely: (1) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility and although the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) that considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) that the evidence for the Prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 8
Guided by the foregoing, the Court resolves to uphold the affirmance by the CA of the conviction of the accused for qualified rape.
A reading of the records has not cast even an iota of doubt against the version of the victim. We uphold her version, and accord credence to her story. In this connection, we have held that testimonies of rape victims who were young and immature, as in this case, deserved full credence considering that no young female, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of her defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and then expose herself to ridicule and shame during the public trial unless she was motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the gravest wrong committed against her.
Even at her very tender age of three, the victim herein was aware that what she had suffered at the hands of the accused had gone beyond child play. She felt violated by him whom she had been reverently referring to as Lolo Macky. It was unthinkable for an innocent girl of very tender years like her — so innocent about the evil ways of the world surrounding her — to have fabricated the charge of rape. That even the accused could not imagine or tender any reason that could explain why she had accused him of the crime unless her accusation was true.
The CA observed that the Prosecution had established that the accused had had carnal knowledge of the victim. The evidence, i.e., the victim's testimony as well as the medico-legal report, confirmed so. Thus, the Court concurs with the CA's observations, and rejects his insistence that her vaginal injury could have been sustained in some other manner.
Lastly, the denial of the commission of the rape by the accused was properly disbelieved because it was self-serving and uncorroborated by objective proof. Indeed, the denial could not overcome the positive identification of him as the rapist.
Although the affirmance of the conviction is in order, the Court modifies the civil liability to conform with People v. Jugueta. 9 The amounts for each of the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to P100,000.00. Interest of 6% per annum is imposed on each item of the civil liability reckoned from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 3, 2014 subject to the MODIFICATION that the awards for the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to P100,000.00 each; and that the accused shall pay interest of 6% per annum on all items of damages reckoned from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
The accused shall further pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 172322, September 8, 2006, 501 SCRA 325, 334.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, and concurred in by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
3. CA rollo, pp. 22-34; penned by Presiding Judge Caridad V. Galvez.
4.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
5. CA rollo, p. 34.
6.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
7.Id. at 20-21 (for the Office of the Solicitor General); at 26-27 (for the Public Attorney's Office).
8.People v. Salidaga, G.R. No. 172323, January 29, 2007, 513 SCRA 306, 312.
9. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 282-283.