FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200510. March 12, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LEOPOLDO ENDAYA, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 12, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200510 (People of the Philippines vs. Leopoldo Endaya). — This is an appeal of Leopoldo Endaya (appellant) from the Decision 1 dated August 5, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04258 which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated August 25, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 163.
The appellant was accused in an information 3 for violating Section 5 (b) 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 5 committed against his daughter AAA, 6 a minor of fifteen (15) years of age, through the lascivious act of kissing and touching the different parts of her body.
Version of the Prosecution
On September 21, 2004, at 11:00 a.m., AAA and the appellant were alone in their house. After AAA took a bath, she entered her room wrapped in a towel and was surprised to see the appellant holding a bolo; that the appellant ordered AAA to take off her towel and commanded her to lie down on bed; that AAA obeyed the appellant out of fear; that the appellant started kissing AAA from her foot up to her private part and mashed her breasts while he poked the bolo on her neck; that the appellant told AAA that he would trim her pubic hair; that the appellant was about to take off his belt and pants when the phone rang and he answered it; that AAA took that chance to run and lock herself inside the comfort room; that the appellant followed her and forcibly tried to open the door; that AAA managed to cloth herself and escape when CCC, the wife of AAA's brother, and DDD, her best friend, arrived in the appellant's house; that the appellant prohibited AAA to go to school but she and DDD ran out of the house; that while they were walking, AAA told DDD about what the appellant did to her and proceeded to the house of AAA's cousin; that BBB, AAA's mother, headed to the house where AAA was; that AAA told BBB and her other aunt about the appellant's bestial desire on her; that AAA underwent psychiatric counseling due to the recurring nightmares she had of the appellant; and that while the case was under preliminary investigation, the appellant was already detained for an alleged rape committed against AAA's eldest sister. TcIHDa
Version of the Appellant
The appellant denied the accusation against him and averred that he was alone on September 21, 2004 because AAA and BBB left the house on September 20, 2004 and never came back; that he was bedridden on September 21, 2004 because of flu; that he has been sick with diabetes for nine months; that AAA filed the case against him because he hit her on September 19, 2004 when she went home at past 8:00 p.m. and saw her kissing a guy living in the neighborhood; and, that his wife, BBB, left the house with AAA on September 20, 2004 after he joked her that he impregnated another woman. To prove his sickness, the appellant presented a medical prescription issued by a medical doctor. 7
In a Decision 8 dated August 25, 2009, the RTC convicted the appellant. For violating Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7160, the RTC sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua due to his ascendancy over the victim, and to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and costs at the legal rate of interest from the time of the filing of the information until fully paid. 9
On appeal, the CA affirmed 10 the decision of the RTC but modified the amounts of the civil indemnity to P20,000.00 and moral damages to P15,000.00 and added the awards of P2,000.00 as exemplary damages and P15,000.00 fine. The CA gave full credence on AAA's testimony for being clear, candid and straightforward given on how the appellant sexually abused her on September 21, 2004 while it brushed aside the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi.
Hence, this appeal.
The conviction of the appellant is sustained.
This Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
To sustain a prosecution for the crime of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7160, the following essential elements should be proved, to wit: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 11
A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. 12 "Lascivious conduct" is defined under Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations 13 of R.A. No. 7610 as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
Here, all the elements in the commission of sexual abuse are present: (1) the appellant kissed AAA's foot up to her private part and mashed her breasts as he poked her neck with a bolo; (2) the appellant has a moral ascendancy with AAA, he being her father; and (3) AAA was only 15 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. Indeed, the appellant's coercion or intimidation gave AAA no choice but to allow him to satisfy his sexual desire.
It is well-settled that "the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it has the direct opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses at the witness stand and detect if they are telling the truth or not." 14 Thus, the RTC's evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is greatly regarded with respect by this Court there being no showing that it overlooked material facts or that it was arrived at arbitrarily.
As to the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, this Court agrees with the CA's disposition that the same might be aptly considered only when the appellant has been shown to be in another place at a crucial time and it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus crimini or its immediate vicinity at the time of the crime's commission. 15 Regrettably, in the instant case, the appellant failed to present any scintilla of evidence to show that his affliction for diabetes and flu would unable him to initiate or perform a sexual act or any strenuous activity 16 or that he was home alone and bedridden during the commission of the crime on September 21, 2004. Notably, not even the appellant's photocopied medical prescription was corroborated by the physician who issued it. EISCaD
Penalties
As to the penalties imposed, Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
This Court considers the alternative circumstance of relationship against the appellant since it has been established that he is AAA's father. Considering that there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period, that is, reclusion perpetua. Concomitantly, Section 31 of R.A. No. 7610 explicitly provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is the parent of the victim, as in the instant case.
As to the damages awarded, this Court however directs that the amount of exemplary damages should be modified from P2,000.00 to P15,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence. 17 An award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, 18 such as relationship.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 5, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04258 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the amount of exemplary damages which should be increased from P2,000.00 to P15,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-13.
2. CA rollo, pp. 15-18.
3. Id. at 43.
4. Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; . . .
5. Otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act".
6. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.
7. Rollo, pp. 4-5.
8. CA rollo, pp. 15-18.
9. Id. at 46.
10. Rollo, pp. 2-13.
11. People v. Jalosjos, 421 Phil. 43, 90 (2001).
12. CA rollo, p. 17.
13. On the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (adopted on October 11, 1993).
14. Navarrete v. People, 542 Phil. 496, 512 (2007).
15. Rollo, p. 10.
16. Id. at 11.
17. People v. Rayon, Sr., G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 745.
18. People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 187531, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 285, 291.