THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202686. September 10, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANKLIN JOHN ESCOBIDO y CAPILI, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 10, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202686 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus FRANKLIN JOHN ESCOBIDO y CAPILI, accused-appellant.)
On appeal is the February 29, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 124, of Caloocan City convicting appellant Franklin John Escobido of the crime of rape.
Briefly, the prosecution evidence proved the following facts: Appellant and the victim, AAA, 3 were former sweethearts for less than a month but had no intimate relationship. On January 1, 2004 after celebrating New Year's Eve at a friend's house, AAA went home around 3:00 a.m. and was approached by appellant along the way. AAA was only 14 years old then. Appellant insisted that AAA go with him. When AAA resisted, appellant grabbed her and dragged her to a vacant house. Appellant threatened AAA and told her to keep silent. Afraid that something bad would happen to her and her family, AAA became too afraid to shout for help. Inside the vacant house, appellant forcibly removed AAA's pants and underwear and then undressed himself. AAA begged appellant to stop but he ignored her pleas. Appellant inserted his finger into AAA's vagina and then inserted his penis. After satisfying his lust, appellant and AAA put on their clothes. Appellant sternly warned AAA that something bad would happen to her if she told her parents. On June 25, 2004, appellant grabbed AAA's breast, which incident finally prompted AAA to tell her mother about the January 1, 2004 incident. AAA's parents then brought her to the barangay hall to file a complaint for acts of lasciviousness and rape against appellant. 4 Dr. Estella Guerrero-Manalo, medico-legal officer of the Child Protection Unit of the University of the Philippines, conducted physical and medical examination on AAA on June 28, 2004. Dr. Manalo testified that while AAA had no evident physical injuries at the time of the examination, she had a healed scar at the 7 o'clock position in her hymen which Dr. Manalo opined could have been caused by the entry of a penis into AAA's vagina. 5
In the face of the prosecution evidence, appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi, which he tried to corroborate with the testimonies of several friends. Appellant claimed that on January 1, 2004, he was at a friend's house watching a movie. AAA was also there watching with friends. He saw AAA leave and saw her off at the gate. Then he went back inside the house to watch again. At 4:00 in the morning, he went home with two friends. Appellant claimed that it was impossible for him to drag AAA without anyone noticing because it was New Year's Eve and there were many people in the streets. There was also no need to rape her because AAA was still his girl friend at that time. Their relationship, however, lasted for only two months because AAA had relations with two other lesbians. Appellant denied the June 25 incident and claimed that he could not have grabbed AAA's breast because he was not a maniac. He also averred that he and AAA had a fight prior to June 25, and that AAA told him after the fight that she would file a complaint in court against him out of anger because he was breaking up with her. 6AaHcIT
The RTC held appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. 7 The trial court gave full credence to AAA's testimony and found the same credible, believable and entitled to great weight. 8 It disbelieved the testimonies of appellant's friends who sought to establish that appellant left much later than AAA as their testimonies were inconsistent and even contradicted each other.
On appeal, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction but reduced the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages to P50,000 each and increased the amount of exemplary damages to P30,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 9 The CA affirmed that the trial court correctly found that AAA testified in a clear, convincing and forthright manner while the testimonies of appellant and his witnesses were inconsistent. The appellate court added that when the issue is credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the trial court findings as the latter is in a better position to decide the issue. 10
Before this Court, appellant insists that the prosecution evidence failed to prove the charge of rape against him under Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (a) 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, as there was no proof of force and intimidation. Appellant stresses that the medical certificate presented does not show that force was present and that save for the injury in AAA's hymen, no other external injury was found on the body of AAA when she was examined six months after the rape. Appellant also claims that AAA's testimony failed to show resistance on her part and that AAA had a tendency to twist facts to cover her wrongdoings. 12
We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. There is no showing that either the trial court or the appellate court committed any error in law and in its findings of fact especially as to AAA's credibility. 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. Absent any showing in this case that the lower courts 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, especially since this Court's own review of the records leads it to conclude that AAA's testimony meets the test of credibility. 13 The fact that AAA did not offer tenacious resistance does not negate the finding of rape. Tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined or a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary. In fact, the law does not even impose the burden of proving resistance on the part of the rape victim. 14 Appellant likewise makes too much of the fact that there were no marks of external injuries on her body when AAA was examined. We note that AAA was examined six months after the rape, or on June 28, 2004, so by then all marks of external injuries she might have sustained on January 1, 2004 would have disappeared already.
We likewise affirm the amount of damages awarded by the appellate court as said amounts are in accord with prevailing jurisprudence. 15 However, consistent with current policy, we impose interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.16
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated February 29, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04251 affirming the conviction of appellant Franklin John Escobido y Capili for the crime of rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
With costs against the appellant. (Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Bersamin, J., designated Member per Raffle dated September 3, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-24. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04251.
2. CA rollo, pp. 38-55. Penned by Judge Victoria Isabel A. Paredes in Criminal Case No. C-72123. The decision was rendered on December 9, 2009.
3. The victim's real name and personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity as well as those of her immediate family, are withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006).
4. TSN, September 6, 2005, pp. 5-11, records, pp. 325-331; TSN, October 4, 2005, pp. 8-13, 19-20, id. at 346-351, 357-358.
5. TSN, July 26, 2005, pp. 3-9, id. at 295-301.
6. TSN, April 19, 2006, pp. 3-8, id. at 397-402; TSN, June 5, 2006, pp. 2-9, 12-15, id. at 406-413, 416-419; TSN, September 12, 2006, pp. 2-3, id. at 424-425.
7. CA rollo, p. 55.
8. Id. at 54.
9. Rollo, p. 23; People v. Malana, G.R. No. 185716, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 676, 696 and People v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 185206, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 437, 449-450.
10. Id. at 15-20.
11. ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:
1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
xxx xxx xxx
12. See Supplemental Brief for the Accused-Appellant, pp. 8-14.
13. People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
14. People v. Ortega, 437 Phil. 730, 744-745 (2002); People v. Escaño, 427 Phil. 162, 195 (2002); People v. Fraga, 386 Phil. 884, 907 (2000); People v. Cantos, 365 Phil. 340, 352 (1999).
15. People v. Bacatan, G.R. No. 203315, September 18, 2013, 706 SCRA 170, 186.
16. Id. at 187.