SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 203985. April 7, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. VILLAMOR DINAMLING, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 April 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 203985 (People of the Philippines v. Villamor Dinamling). — Appellant Villamor Dinamling appeals from the decision 1 dated April 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed with modifications the decision 2 dated March 24, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lagawe, Ifugao, Branch 14, finding him guilty of rape committed against thirteen (13)-year old AAA.
The Facts
AAA, a second year high school student, was the classmate and best friend of appellant's daughter, BBB. In the evening of August 6, 2008, AAA spent the night in the house of BBB as she used to do whenever her parents were in another place to work as hired farm laborers. While AAA was sleeping, she was about to change her position when she felt a heavy weight on top of her; she also felt pain and the penis of the appellant in her vagina. Finding her pants and panty lowered, she pulled them up and rushed to the side of BBB. She recognized the appellant because of the illumination coming from outside. The appellant also wore the came t-shirt he was wearing that same day.
The rape was confirmed by the physician who examined AAA. The medical certificate showed AAA sustained a fresh hymeneal laceration within the labia majora area.
For his defense, the appellant denied having committed the rape. He claimed that AAA did not sleep in their house on the night of the alleged rape; after eating dinner in their house, AAA and her daughter BBB went to sleep in the house of AAA. BBB and CCC, the appellant's wife, corroborated his defense. SAHEIc
The RTC Ruling
The RTC did not give evidentiary weight to BBB and CCC's testimony for being self-serving as BBB and CCC are the daughter and wife of the appellant. The close relationship of the defense witnesses to the appellant, the reality that they cannot be expected to be disinterested witnesses, and the ease in concocting stories to support his defense, made their testimonies suspicious. Denial, being inherently a weak defense, cannot outweigh the complainant's positive testimony. 3
The element of force need not be established since AAA was not in a position to put up resistance. She was sleeping when the rape was consummated.
The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The court likewise ordered him to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The CA Ruling
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's appreciation of AAA's testimony which it found as simple, direct and consistent. AAA was not prompted by ill motive since even the appellant's wife and daughter testified that they were not aware of any reason why AAA would falsely impute such grave offense to the appellant.
The CA reiterated the respect accorded to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness' testimony for having the peculiar advantage of observing first hand the deportment of witnesses while testifying. 4
The CA affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC on the appellant and the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages. It reduced the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 as the crime committed was only simple rape. The CA awarded AAA exemplary damages of P25,000.00 to deter the commission of similar acts and in view of the aggravating circumstance of AAA's minority.
The Court's Ruling
We affirm the appellant's conviction. We see no ground to reverse or modify the RTC findings that rape was committed against AAA, which findings the CA completely affirmed. The appellant failed to rebut AAA's testimony which was supported by her medical record and the testimony of the examining physician. EaIcAS
WHEREFORE, the Count resolves to DISMISS the appeal of appellant Villamor Dinamling from the decision dated April 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04579. We AFFIRM the award of civil indemnity and moral damages, both in the amount of P50,000.00. However, in line with recent jurisprudence, we increase the amount of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. Again, following recent jurisprudence, the awarded damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision until its full satisfaction. 5
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Danton Q. Bueser; rollo, pp. 2-12.
2. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 1801; CA rollo, pp. 16-23.
3. People v. Jose, 250 SCRA 319, 322.
4. People v. Ahmad, 419 SCRA 677, 685.
5. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Circular No. 799, s. 2013, effective July 1, 2013; Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr., G.R. No. 18971, August 13, 2013.