THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200306. November 11, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO DEL MUNDO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200306 (People of the Philippines v. Rogelio del Mundo). — 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 April 25, 2011, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, be reversed and set aside.
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape in relation to Republic Act Nos. 7659 and 6353, as the alleged victim is his own daughter who was a minor (nine [9] years old) at the time of the commission of the crime. The Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 41 (RTC) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged based on the prosecution's evidence that on or about the 23rd day of February, 2002, accused-appellant succeeded in satisfying his lewd desires on his own nine-year-old daughter, by undressing said victim, lying on top of her and inserting his penis into her vagina. The crime was committed inside their own abode, and although the victim's siblings were sleeping in the same room, the victim could not shout for help because accused-appellant was threatening to kill her. At the time the dastardly act was committed, the victim's mother was away, as she was working as a house helper in Manila.
The RTC rendered judgment sentencing accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and to pay the victim the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA, assailing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimony, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On April 25, 2011, the CA promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the conviction of accused-appellant by ordering accused-appellant to pay the victim the additional amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages.
Thus, this appeal, where accused-appellant reiterates the arguments presented before the CA, i.e., that the victim's testimony, that she did not struggle or shout for help despite the presence of her siblings in the same room while the alleged rape was being committed, lacks credibility; and the fact that findings from the medical examination conducted nine days after the alleged rape, that the victim had healed vaginal lacerations, goes to show that there could have been no rape on the date claimed by the victim, as the laceration was already healed.
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 Furthermore, the victim was able to sufficiently explain that she could not shout due to fear from the threats uttered by her father. The healed laceration is also not proof that no forcible penetration could have occurred on the date of the rape in question.
However, under prevailing jurisprudence, the following are the minimum indemnity and damages where the death penalty is proper but could not be imposed under present law: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. 4 aCIHcD
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision dated April 25, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03536 by increasing the award for damages, thus, ORDERING accused-appellant Rogelio Del Mundo to PAY the victim P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. (Jardeleza, J., no part; Leonen, J., additional member, per Raffle dated November 9, 2015)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.
2. People v. Mamaruncas, et al., 680 Phil. 192, 211 (2012).
3. People v. Rodavia, 426 Phil. 707, 722 (2002).
4. People v. Tabayan, G.R. No. 190620, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 587, 607.