THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231798. November 20, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JONEL DE LEON y LUSTICA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231798 (People of the Philippines vs. Jonel De Leon y Lustica). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation dated October 12, 2017 stating that it sees no cogent reason to file a supplemental brief considering that it has extensively discussed the relevant issues of the case; however, it finds that the award of damages to the victim must be modified to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages;
(2) the letter dated September 20, 2017 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since May 24, 2015; and
(3) accused-appellant's Manifestation and Motion dated October 25, 2017 stating that he is adopting as his supplemental brief the Brief of November 16, 2015 since it had adequately and exhaustively discussed all matters pertinent to the case. ETHIDa
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated July 14, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07415. The questioned ruling affirmed the Decision 2 dated January 6, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 225, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-10-163343, which found Jonel L. De Leon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
The Facts
Accused-appellant Jonel L. De Leon was charged with the crime of Rape in an Information, which reads:
That on or about the 6th day of April 2010, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by [did] then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously undress one EOR [AAA], 13 years of age, a minor, and thereafter have [had] carnal knowledge with said AAA all against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned on May 26, 2010, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. After the completion of the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Sometime in 2010, AAA, a thirteen (13) year-old high school student, met accused-appellant on Facebook, who was then eighteen (18) years old. The two exchanged chat messages, became friends, and eventually, sweethearts. From their exchange of chat messages, AAA believed that accused-appellant loved her, and she eventually agreed to meet him in person.
On April 6, 2010, accused-appellant and AAA were supposed to hang out at SM North EDSA. However, accused-appellant instead persuaded AAA to hang out with him at his friend's house. Although AAA was hesitant and wanted to go home, she eventually succumbed to his plan. Accused-appellant brought AAA to his friend's house, and there stayed inside the room. cSEDTC
While inside the room, accused-appellant began to undress AAA. She tried to stop him and kept saying "Ayo kopo! Natatakot ako!" but her cries fell on deaf ears. Accused-appellant continued to remove her clothes until she was half-naked, after which he felt her breasts and sexual organ. Afterwards, accused-appellant inserted his sexual organ into AAA's. She tried to push him away and begged for him to stop, but accused-appellant still raped her.
After accused-appellant raped her, AAA told him she wanted to go home to her uncle's house, which happened to be near the area. He then accompanied AAA. Along the way, they met her uncle who asked AAA who was the guy she was with. Because she did not want her uncle to know that she was seeing accused-appellant, AAA replied to her uncle that he was just an acquaintance.
The next day, AAA approached her parents and confided to them what accused-appellant did to her.
She was brought to the PNP Camp Crame, where she was examined by Dr. Giselle Baluyot, a Medico-Legal Officer. Dr. Baluyot reduced her findings in Medico-legal Report No. R10-679, noting that there was a clear evidence of a blunt penetrating trauma on AAA's hymen. This means that a blunt object, such as an erect penis, could have been inserted there.
Version of the Defense
In the morning of April 5, 2010, accused-appellant met AAA who told her that she has to secure a school clearance. AAA changed her mind, and instead they decided to just go to accused-appellant's house to have lunch. Thereafter, he brought her home. On the following day, April 6, 2010, AAA was still not able to get her clearance, as they decided to go to SM North EDSA. At the mall, they met one of accused-appellant's friends, Apong. He introduced AAA to his friend and after eating at McDonald's, they went straight home.
The Ruling of the RTC
On January 6, 2015, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged. The fallo of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, accused Jonel L. De Leon is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as defined in Art. 266-A (1) of The Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment with duration of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay EOR the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED.3
The RTC discussed that AAA's assertion that she was raped was not convincingly disproved by accused-appellant. His defenses — that he did not have sexual intercourse with AAA; that she might have only wanted to extricate herself from her fear that her parents would berate her should they learn of their romance; and that she might have wanted to extort money from him — all consisted of denial and alibi. Alibi, being one of the weakest defenses, cannot prevail over a positive and categorical narration provided by the offended party.
Finding AAA's testimony to be credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature to establish the occurrence of sexual intercourse and lack of consent thereto beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty.
The Ruling of the CA
In seeking his acquittal, accused-appellant insisted that the RTC erred in finding him guilty of rape solely on the basis of AAA's testimony, which, according to him, was incredible and contrary to physical evidence. 4
The CA, on July 14, 2016, affirmed his conviction. In dismissing accused-appellant's lone assignment of error, it held that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence. No young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for a wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity, according to the CA, are generally badges of truth. Thus, AAA's testimony, which was given when she was only 13 years old, deserves to be accorded full credibility.
Further, the CA agreed with the RTC that accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi are weak. As between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.
The CA, thus, denied the accused-appellant's appeal, 5 to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The decision dated 06 January 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 225 in Criminal Case No. Q-10-163343 finding accused-appellant Jonel L. De Leon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as defined under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code is AFFIRMED. acEHCD
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 6 before the CA on August 9, 2016, which was given due course on August 12, 2016. 7
The Issues
He submits that the decisions of the RTC and the CA are contrary to facts, law and applicable jurisprudence.
The Ruling of the Court
The instant appeal is unmeritorious.
AAA's testimony is credible
Accused-appellant asserts that the CA should not have relied solely on AAA's testimony as it was incredible and contrary to physical evidence. The contention is bereft of merit.
In People v. Alipio, 8 this Court has ruled that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is deserving of the highest respect because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. Such assessment binds the Court except when the assessment was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could have affected the results of the case. None of these exceptions exists in this case.
Further, in a long line of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a child of tender years, is given full weight and credit. A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness.
During her testimony, 9 AAA clearly and categorically recounted her harrowing experience with accused-appellant. His act of forcing his penis inside AAA's vagina despite the latter's plea of "Ayoko po! Ayo kopo!" constitutes rape under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, 10 which has the following elements:
1. That the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and
2. That said act was accomplished
a. through the use of force or intimidation.
Thus, the CA did not err in relying on AAA's testimony and in holding that, indeed, the crime of rape under Article 266-A (1) was committed. SDHTEC
Mere alibi and denial cannot overcome
Accused-Appellant wants to sway the Court by saying that he did not kiss, nor had sexual intercourse with AAA and that AAA's mother offered to withdraw the case for a Two Hundred Thousand Peso (Php200,000.00) settlement. These, however, are all unsubstantiated claims, which cannot prevail over AAA's credible testimony.
It is an unyielding fact that a defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters. 11
Regrettably in this case, accused-appellant's plea of innocence has no leg to stand on. The RTC and the CA correctly ruled that the crime of rape has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
With regard to the damages awarded, this Court, in conformity to prevailing jurisprudence on damages for Rape under Art. 266-A (1) of the RPC, 12 modifies the decision in that the P50,000.00 moral damages and P50,000.00 civil damages are each increased to P75,000.00. In addition, exemplary damages amounting to P75,000.00 shall also be awarded. Exemplary damages are called for, by way of public example, and to protect the young from sexual abuse. Furthermore, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of judgment until fully paid. 13
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision dated July 14, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07415 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court's January 6, 2015 Decision is hereby amended to read as follows: WHEREFORE, accused-appellant Jonel L. De Leon is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as defined in Art. 266-A (1) of The Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment with duration of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of 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, plus interest on all damages at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
2. CA rollo, pp. 42-49. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III.
3.Id. at 48.
4.Id. at 30.
5.Rollo, p. 13.
6.Id. at 15.
7.Id. at 18.
8. G.R. No. 185285, October 5, 2009.
9.Rollo, pp. 8-12.
10. 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:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation.
11.People v. Tamolon and Cabagan, G.R. No. 180169, February 27, 2009.
12.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
13.People v. Crisostomo, G.R. No. 196435, January 29, 2014.