THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233657. April 4, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. ROMMEL DIZON y LACAP, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018, which reads as follows: TIADCc
"G.R. No. 233657 (People of the Philippines vs. Rommel Dizon y Lacap). — The Court:
(1) NOTES:
(a) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (Re: Supplemental Brief) dated January 24, 2018 stating that it is adopting its Appellee's Brief of April 18, 2016 and dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief to expedite the disposition of this case and to avoid repetition of arguments; and
(b) the letter dated March 8, 2018 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 April 9, 2015; and
(2) DISPENSES with the filing of accused-appellant's supplemental brief and considers his appellant's brief as his pleading in this case.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated November 23, 2016 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37547, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Recall that on June 30, 2012, Dizon, the stepfather of the 14-year old victim AAA, a deaf-mute, was charged with the crimes of Rape thru Sexual Assault and Acts of Lasciviousness in two (2) sets of Information, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 33316 and 33317-R, respectively, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 4.
Finding that the prosecution sufficiently proved Dizon's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Accused ROMMEL DIZON Y LACAP is found:
1. In Criminal Case Number 33317-R GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape through Sexual Assault under Article 266-A par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, he is to pay AAA P30,000.00 as civil indemnity ex-delicto and P30,000.00 as moral damages with the legal rate of 6% interest per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
2. In Criminal Case Number 33316-R, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer indeterminate sentence of four (4) months of arresto mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional in its maximum period as maximum.
In accordance with the earlier cited cases, he is to pay AAA P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P15,000.00 as moral damages with the legal rate of 6% interest per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
The filing fees for the civil aspect of this case shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Considering that the accused has undergone preventive imprisonment, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the time he has undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions provided for by law.
SO ORDERED.2
The RTC gave credence to AAA's testimony and ruled that the fact that she is a deaf-mute does not damage the clarity and import of her testimony. 3 Furthermore, the RTC held that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. The victim's testimony alone, if credible, suffices. 4
With regard to Dizon being AAA's stepfather and AAA's minority at the time of the incident, the RTC appreciated these as aggravating circumstances. CAIHTE
Dizon elevated the case via an appeal, insisting that he was out of the country at the time of the incident. The CA, however, affirmed the RTC's ruling in its entirety, holding that the prosecution proved that hearing-impaired students like AAA find it difficult to point out specific times when conveying their stories because of their limited knowledge as to vocabulary. Because of said difficulty, it cannot discredit AAA's testimony and rely on Dizon's defense that he was abroad at the time of the incident stated in the Information — that is October 2007. According to the CA, the date of the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential element thereof. 5 The CA likewise gave credence to CCC's testimony corroborating AAA's narration of the incident which was allegedly witnessed by CCC. 6
The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 4, acting as a Family Court is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 7
Hence, the present appeal.
In People v. Tuangco, 8 We held that a deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they (1) can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and (3) can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter. 9
The inability of AAA to accurately express the date when the incidents happened should not diminish the value and trustworthiness of her testimony on how the incidents transpired, especially considering the fact that Dizon's very own daughter, an eyewitness, corroborated such. As correctly noted by the trial and appellate courts, the exact date of the commission of rape is immaterial and is not an essential element of the crime. Thus, in People v. Maglente, the Court held that "the exact date when complainant was sexually abused is not an essential element of the offense of rape. What is material in a rape case is the commission of the rape by the accused-appellant against the complainant." 10
Anent the award of damages, there is a need to impose exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 for Criminal Case Number 33317-R following People v. Bonaagua, 11 and P15,000.00 in Criminal Case Number 33316-R, in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship. 12
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the CA Decision dated November 23, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37547, affirming in toto the February 2, 2015 Consolidated Judgment of the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 4 in Criminal Case Nos. 33316 and 33317-R, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified, the fallo of the RTC ruling shall read:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Accused ROMMEL DIZON Y LACAP is found:
1. In Criminal Case Number 33317-R GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape through Sexual Assault under Article 266-A par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, he is to pay AAA P30,000.00 as civil indemnity ex-delicto, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages with the legal rate of 6% interest per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
2. In Criminal Case Number 33316-R, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer indeterminate sentence of four (4) months of arresto mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional in its maximum period as maximum.
In accordance with the earlier cited cases, he is to pay AAA P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 as exemplary damages with the legal rate of 6% interest per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
The filing fees for the civil aspect of this case shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Considering that the accused has undergone preventive imprisonment, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the time he has undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions provided for by law.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
2. CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
3.Id. at 45.
4.Id. at 51.
5.Rollo, p. 8.
6.Id. at 11-12.
7.Id. at 13.
8.People v. Tuangco, G.R. No. 130331, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 429, 439-440.
9.People v. Tuangco, G.R. No. 130331, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 429, 439-440.
10. G.R. Nos. 124559-66, April 30, 1999, 306 SCRA 546, 567. Citing People v. Ocampo, 206 SCRA 223, 232 (1992).
11.People v. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 620, 643.
12. See Flordeliz v. People, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010.