THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252851. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. FILAMER CUELLO DE LEON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252851 (People of the Philippines v. Filamer Cuello De Leon). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated July 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08605 which affirmed with modification, as to the award of damages, the Decision 3 dated October 10, 2015 of Branch 89, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacoor City, Cavite in Criminal Case No. B-2004-698 finding Filamer Cuello De Leon (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Antecedents
An Information 5 was filed charging accused-appellant with Statutory Rape committed as follows:
That on or about the 26th day of July 2004, in the Municipality of Bacoor, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, then armed with a bladed weapon, actuated by lust and with lewd designs, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of AAA, a minor, ten (10) years old, having been born on July 28, 1993, against her will and consent, thereby degrading, debasing and demeaning complainant's worth and integrity as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
During the arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. 7
Trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On July 26, 2004, at around 11:00 p.m., AAA, 8 then only ten years of age, was sleeping at the camalig near their house with her younger brother. Suddenly, she was awakened when she felt someone touch her breast. She rose from her bed, but did not see anyone because the place was dark. Thereafter, a person covered her mouth with his hand, poked a fan knife at her and whispered to her not to shout. AAA tried to resist, but the person held her hands, removed her clothes and placed himself on top of her. The person then inserted his penis into her vagina. After satisfying his lust, the person ran outside of the camalig but immediately returned to retrieve his pair of slippers. It was at that point that AAA recognized the person as herein accused-appellant because the light outside illuminated the inside of the camalig. AAA saw accused-appellant without a shirt but wearing a pair of jogging pants. 9
Afraid that accused-appellant would still be outside of the camalig, AAA waited for morning to come. When she felt that it was already safe to go out, she went to her mother and informed her of the sexual abuse she experienced with accused-appellant. Her mother accompanied her to the barangay authorities to report the incident. Soon after, the barangay authorities arrested accused-appellant and brought him to the police station where he was investigated and detained. 10 The medico-legal report prepared by Dr. Merle P. Tan (Dr. Tan) of the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital 11 showed that AAA had abrasions in her hymen and perihymenal area; and that the abrasions could have been caused by an entry of a blunt object such as a penis. 12
Version of the Defense
In his defense, accused-appellant narrated that: (1) he lives in Unida de Cristo Chapel located about fifty (50) meters away from the place where AAA resides; (2) his brother is a pastor at the chapel; (3) on July 26, 2004 at around 7:00 a.m., he went to the chapel; (4) he read the bible and left the chapel at around 9:00 a.m. to go fishing; (5) he returned at around 12:00 p.m.; (6) he was apprehended by the authorities while writing the "jubellium"; and (7) AAA had been paid to file the case. 13
The Ruling of the RTC
On October 10, 2015, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of Statutory Rape. It ruled that accused-appellant's denial was inherently weak compared to AAA's positive identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. Thus, it decreed as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, finding accused Filamer Cuello de Leon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape, he is hereby ordered to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
He is ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages and P30,000 as exemplary damages and to pay the interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded, to be computed from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
Considering that the accused is a detention prisoner, he is credited in full of the time he had undergone preventive imprisonment.
SO ORDERED. 14
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision, 15 the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction, but with modification as to the award of damages. It found that the prosecution' was able to establish all the elements of the crime of Statutory Rape. First, AAA was only ten years old at the time of the incident. Second, she positively identified accused-appellant as her assailant; she was able to recognize accused-appellant when he, after committing the crime, returned to the camalig to get his slippers. Third, AAA narrated her tragic ordeal in the hands of accused-appellant in a clear, straightforward, and convincing manner. Lastly, her testimony was likewise corroborated by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Tan as to the existence of abrasions in her hymen and perihymenal area. 16
The fallo of the assailed Decision 17 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal filed by accused-appellant BBB is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 10, 2015 of Branch 89, Regional Trial Court of Bacoor City, Cavite in Criminal Case No. B-2004-698 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the amount of damages. Accordingly, accused-appellant BBB is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to pay private complainant AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until their full payment.
SO ORDERED. 18
Hence, the instant appeal before the Court.
The issue here is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape as found by the lower courts.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
There is no cogent reason to deviate from the CA ruling affirming the RTC's factual finding that accused-appellant is guilty of Statutory Rape. The issues raised herein are factual in nature. "The trial court's evaluation shall be binding on the appellate court unless it is shown that certain facts of substance and value have been plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied." 19 None of these exceptions are present in this case.
Even if the Court considers the factual issues raised, the findings of fact of the RTC and the CA still sufficiently support the conviction and imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellant.
In the case, the lower courts properly found AAA's testimony to be credible and sufficiently corroborated by the medico-legal report which found abrasions in AAA's hymen that were caused by a blunt object. It is settled that "a rape victim's sole account of the incident is sufficient to support a conviction of rape if it is straightforward and candid, especially so when it is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician," 20 as in the case. "Laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration." 21
Moreover, accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot outweigh the positive testimony of AAA that he had sexual intercourse with her against her will. After all, "denial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime." 22 Under the circumstances, "a young girl's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give the details of her ignominy, cannot just be dismissed as a mere concoction." 23 The CA properly observed:
Private complainant's testimony was corroborated by Dr. Tan's findings as to the existence of abrasions in private complainant's hymen and perihymenal area. Dr. Tan opined that such injuries were possibly caused by a blunt object such as a penis. Although such medical findings, left alone, were susceptible of different interpretations, private complainant's narration about how accused-appellant had sexually assaulted her confirmed that he had carnal knowledge of her. Verily, when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge.
In an attempt to exculpate himself from liability, accused-appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi.
xxx xxx xxx.
Accused-appellant was unable to prove his defense of denial and alibi.
Accused-appellant denied knowing private complainant and professed that he was at the chapel at the time of the incident. However, these claims remained uncorroborated. Notably, accused-appellant's testimony is marred by inconsistencies. While he alleged that he was at the chapel the whole day of July 26, 2004, he also stated that he left the chapel at around 9:00 o'clock in the morning and returned at around noon of even date. He also asseverated that he read the bible the whole day of said date, but later retracted the same and said that he did not read the bible in the afternoon.
Furthermore, accused-appellant was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place of the incident at the time the crime took place. Accused-appellant himself testified that the chapel was only fifty (50) meters away from the camalig where private complainant lived, and it would only take more or less two (2) minutes to get there. Apparently, such short distance is not demonstrative of the physical impossibility for accused-appellant to be at the place of the commission of the crime. Hence, in contrast to private complainant's direct, positive, and categorical testimony, accused-appellants defense will not stand. 24 (Emphasis supplied)
Finally, the RTC and the CA properly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In view of the prevailing jurisprudence, 25 the CA likewise correctly ordered accused-appellant to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until paid in full.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08605 finding accused-appellant Filamer Cuello De Leon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED. The civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall be P75,000.00 each. Likewise, the award of damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 16-17.
2.Id. at 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Dy with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of the Court) and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 71-87; penned by Executive Judge Eduardo Israel Tanguanco.
4. "Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is Committed —
"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx
"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
(The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, Republic Act No. 8353, [September 30, 1997]).
5. CA rollo, pp. 71-72.
6.Id.
7.Rollo, p. 4.
8. The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; Republic Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 5, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances, (People v. AAA, G.R. No. 248777, July 7, 2020).
9.Rollo, p. 5.
10.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
11. CA rollo, p. 75.
12.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
13.Id. at 6-7.
14. CA Rollo, p. 87.
15.Rollo, pp. 3-15.
16.Id. at 10-12.
17.Id. at 3-15.
18.Id. at 14.
19.People v. Amoc, 810 Phil. 253 (2017), citing People v. Ofemiano, 625 Phil. 92 (2010).
20.People v. Licaros, G.R. No. 238622, December 7, 2020.
21.People v. Manaligod, 831 Phil. 204, 212-213 (2018).
22.People v. Deocares, G.R. No. 246585, June 17, 2020 [Notice], citing People v. Fraga, 386 Phil. 884, 905 (2000).
23.Id.
24.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
25.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).