THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210655. December 9, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROGELIO DURAN @ "LOLOY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated December 9, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210655 (People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Duran @ "Loloy"). — On appeal is the July 18, 2013 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CEB-C.R.-H.C. No. 01454 affirming the conviction of appellant Rogelio Duran @ "Loloy" for the crime of qualified rape.
The Information 2 charging appellant with qualified rape reads:
That sometime in the year 2003 at Brgy. [XXX], municipality of St. Bernard, province of Southern Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lustful intent and lewd designs and by means of force and intim[i]dation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously ravish one [AAA] 3 a sixteen (16) year old girl and his relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, she is (sic) being his niece, and had carnal knowledge with her without her consent and against her will to the damage and prejudice of the victim and of social order.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The evidence for the prosecution showed that AAA lived in the house of her aunt, CCC, located at Barangay XXX, St. Bernard, Southern Leyte. Appellant, who is AAA's uncle, also lived in the same house.
Sometime in 2003, AAA, who was then 16 years old, was awakened in her sleep because appellant was already lying on top of her. Appellant removed AAA's short pants and panty. Appellant, who was already naked, then inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. AAA cried in pain. AAA was not able to resist because appellant was heavy. Appellant threatened AAA that he will box her if she will report what he did.
AAA left the house of her aunt CCC a year later and stayed in the house of Marietta Acosta, her distant relative. Marietta's house is also located in Barangay XXX, St. Bernard, Southern Leyte. At around 3:00 a.m. of June 12, 2004, Marietta saw appellant inside her house while he was about to enter the room of AAA. However, appellant was not able to enter AAA's room. Instead, he proceeded to the room where Marietta's husband was sleeping. Sensing danger, Marietta screamed and ordered appellant to get out of the house. This incident prompted AAA to confide to Marietta that she was raped by appellant in 2003. Marietta accompanied AAA to the Barangay Health Center and then to the Department of Social Welfare and Development to file charges against appellant.
Appellant denied that he raped AAA. Appellant claimed that one of his legs was amputated. Hence, he returned to their ancestral house in Barangay XXX, St. Bernard, Southern Leyte. In 2002, his sister BBB, AAA's mother, came home. Thereafter, BBB returned to Manila leaving her children behind. In 2002, they transferred to the house of his sister BBB, except for AAA who lived with a relative Debie Dizon. AAA lived at Debie's house from 2002 to 2003. Thereafter, AAA transferred to Marietta's house and worked as a waitress from 2003 to 2004. On one occasion, he met AAA at the public market and admonished her for having a boyfriend. On cross-examination, appellant said that his admonition may be the reason behind AAA's filing of the rape case against him.
Another witness for the defense, CCC, testified that AAA never stayed in her house. CAIHTE
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted appellant of qualified rape. The fallo of the RTC Decision 4 dated January 20, 2012 in Criminal Case No. 1523 reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Rogelio Duran, alias "Loloy" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of QUALIFIED RAPE, this Court hereby renders judgment sentencing him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the victim [AAA]:
1. The sum of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex-delicto;
2. The sum of Php50,000.00 by way of moral damages; and
3. The sum of Php25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.5
The RTC found that AAA's testimony was positive, direct and straightforward. 6 The RTC added that the medical finding on June 23, 2004 of an old wound at 6 o'clock is consistent with AAA's testimony that she was raped sometime in 2003. 7 The RTC rejected appellant's defense of denial for it was not corroborated by a credible witness. The RTC held that denial and alibi are inherently weak and crumble in the light of positive declaration of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. 8
In its Order 9 dated February 2, 2012, the RTC denied appellant's motion for reconsideration and maintained its stand that AAA's testimony is credible to convict appellant.
The CA denied the appeal and affirmed with modifications the RTC Decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this appeal is DENIED. We resolve to AFFIRM the Decision dated January 20, 2012 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, San Juan, Southern Leyte in Criminal Case No. 1523 with the MODIFICATIONS:
a) The award of Php50,000 as civil indemnity is increased to Php75,000.00;
b) The award of Php50,000.00 as moral damages is increased to Php75,000.00; and
c) The award of Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages is increased to Php30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.10
The CA found nothing ambiguous in AAA's testimony and held that her testimony was straightforward and categorical about how she was raped by appellant, her uncle. The medical findings of Dr. Albert Augustus P. Seno which showed an old lacerated wound in AAA's vagina which might have been caused by an insertion of a penis also supported the rape accusation, said the CA. 11
Hence, this appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of merit. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not. 12 In this case, the RTC found AAA's testimony to be credible and noted that it was positive, direct and straightforward. The CA agreed that AAA's testimony was straightforward and categorical. The determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, as in this case, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect. 13 Indeed, AAA clearly testified that she cried in pain when appellant raped her and threatened her with physical harm, to wit:
Q Now, [AAA] in the year 2003 do you still recall, if any, of the accused Rogelio Duran did to you at the time?
A Yes, I can remember.
Q What did Rogelio Duran did (sic) to you?
A He raped me.
Q What do you mean by rape? Can you tell this Honorable Court exactly what he did to you?
A It was nighttime sir, and on that evening while I was sleeping he went inside my room. I was only awakened when he was already on the (sic) top of me.
Q You said that you remember him on top of you, what else do (sic) to you at the time when he entered your room?
A He undressed me.
Q What did he undress you? (sic)
A My short pants and my panty.
xxx xxx xxx
Q So after he removed your short pants and panty what did the accused do next?
A He inserted his penis on (sic) my vagina.
COURT:
Q What was your position when the accused inserted his penis into your vagina? DETACa
A I was lying.
Q And what was the position of the accused?
A He was on top.
Q Was he naked?
A Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q You said that accused inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you feel?
A Pain.
Q And what did you do when you felt pain at the time?
A I cried, sir.
Q At the time when the accused was doing this act to you, did he say anything to you?
A Yes, there was.
Q What did he tell you?
A "Don't report this act to others because I will box you."
Q Did you not resist at the time when the accused was molesting you?
A I did not because he is heavy.
Q Now, how many (sic) did the accused insert his penis into your vagina?
A Once, sir. 14
Thus, absent any showing that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses. 15
The elements of qualified rape are: (a) the victim is a female over 12 years of age but under 18 years of age; (b) the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; and (c) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim either through force, threat or intimidation. 16 These elements are present in this case. AAA was 15 years old in 2003, having been born in 1988. 17 The offender, herein appellant, is AAA's uncle, AAA's relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree. Appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA through threat or intimidation.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM the Decision dated July 18, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CEB-C.R.-H.C. No. 01454 with MODIFICATION that the monetary awards shall earn 6% interest per annum reckoned from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
With costs against the appellant. (Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Perez, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated September 24, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.
2. Records, pp. 1-2.
3. Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victim's privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).
4. CA rollo, pp. 31-44. Penned by Presiding Judge Altone M. Miralles.
5. Id. at 44.
6. Id. at 41.
7. Id. at 35, 42.
8. Id. at 43.
9. Records, p. 413.
10. Rollo, p. 14.
11. Id. at 12.
12. People v. Obina, 632 Phil. 288, 293 (2010).
13. People v. Sabadlab, 679 Phil. 425, 438 (2012).
14. TSN, May 17, 2006, pp. 12-18.
15. People v. Obina, supra note 12.
16. People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 54, 63, citing People v. Arcillas, 692 Phil. 40, 50 (2012).
17. Rollo, p. 13.