THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204050. January 22, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GILBERT DOMINGO Y CANCEJO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 22, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 204050 (People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Domingo y Cancejo). — The Provincial Prosecutor charged the accused Gilbert Domingo y Cancejo with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao in Criminal Case 4160.
The prosecution evidence shows that on January 31, 2002 accused Domingo sent CM, 1 his 8-year-old niece to her aunt's house to get some biscuits. Upon CM's return to her house, Domingo instructed her to go to his house and get chicken that he would serve as "pulutan" in a drinking session with CM's father and grandfather. As it turned out, Domingo followed CM and brought her into his house.
Accused Domingo removed CM's clothes, undressed himself, and then ravished her. He afterwards warned her not to tell anyone about it or he would kill her. But, as it happened, Domingo's wife, BR, arrived and caught sight of her husband wiping CM's genitals. BR called her husband "Pig!" and cried for help. CM's father, accompanied by her uncle, responded and shouted at Domingo to leave or he would kill him. Domingo fled. SETaHC
On February 1, 2002 CM gave her statement to the police and was examined at the Tullang District Hospital Dr. Fernando L. Siazon found her to have suffered "fresh hymenal lacerations with minimal bleeding at [3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions] with abrasions at inner aspect of labia minora, bilateral." 2
In his defense, Domingo denied that he raped CM. He averred that on January 31, 2002 he went fishing with Rogelio Bayota and Rodolfo Calixto at Sitio Camunayan, Sta. Margarita, Baggao, Cagayan, which was about nine hours walk from Pallagao.
On July 8, 2009 the RTC found Domingo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The court also ordered him to pay CM P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. On March 29, 2012 the Court of Appeals (CA), acting in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04063, affirmed with modification the RTC Decision in that it sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole and increased the award of exemplary damages to P30,000.00.
In his appeal, the accused Domingo claims that CM's testimony is not entitled to credit since her behavior was not consistent with that of a rape victim. But CM was eight years old. Her behavior could hardly be judged by some inflexible pattern. The trial court, which had the benefit of directly observing how she expressed herself, found her testimony credible. The appellate court would be a poor judge of the same. It must respect the trial court's finding that CM was "straightforward, candid and firm in giving details on how she was sexually ravished." Besides, there is no showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances that would affect the outcome of the case. 3 DcaECT
Like the CA, this Court finds the accused Domingo's defense of alibi self-serving and undeserving of belief, given CM's categorical, positive, and clear identification of him as her rapist. The testimonies of BR and Dr. Siazon also bolstered and corroborated CM's testimonies.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMSin toto the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 29, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04063 that found the accused-appellant Gilbert Domingo y Cancejo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
SO ORDERED." ASCTac
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), the real name of the victim shall be withheld and fictitious initials will be used to represent her in its decisions. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity as well as those of her immediate family or household members shall not be disclosed.
2. Records, p. 13.
3. People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013.