SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205338. April 21, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIZER ESPARTERO y GERON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated21 April 2014which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 205338 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELIZER ESPARTERO y GERON.
Accused Elizer Espartero y Geron (appellant) seeks the reversal of the decision 1 dated May 29, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the joint decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 89, convicting him of two counts of rape committed against two minors (AAA and CCC), aged six and five years old at the time the rapes were committed.
The Facts
AAA and CCC are cousins and are the appellant's neighbors in Payatas, Quezon City. The rape against AAA was committed in the afternoon of August 8, 2006. AAA and CCC were looking for a friend and went inside the appellant's house. On seeing AAA, the appellant approached her and immediately removed her shorts and panty. He placed AAA on his lap, facing him, and put his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain and complained to the appellant. She somehow managed to escape and informed her mother of the incident.
The rape against CCC was committed sometime in the afternoon of July 28, 2006. While playing outside of their house, the appellant carried her and brought her to his house. He undressed CCC, placed her on his lap and inserted his penis into her vagina. CCC felt pain and complained to the appellant. She told the appellant that she wanted to go home. She immediately reported the incident to her grandmother. IAcTaC
The appellant denied the accusations against him, alleging that at the time the two rapes happened, he was working as welder and maintenance employee at Filinvest 2, Quezon City. He claimed that at both times, he was with his co-workers, Jose Godong and Alex Chingco.
The RTC's Ruling
In its joint decision of July 28, 2010, the RTC found the appellant guilty of two (2) counts of qualified rape. It found that the appellant's carnal knowledge with AAA and CCC, who were below 7 years old at the time the crimes were committed, were clearly established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Although it appears from the records of the two cases that there was no full penetration of the appellant's penis into the vagina of AAA and CCC, it ruled that full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary to conclude that carnal knowledge took place. It was established that the appellant's penis touched the vagina of AAA and CCC because they felt pain.
The RTC rejected the appellant's defense that he did not commit the rapes imputed against him because he was at work at both times. It found that although he testified that he was with two of his co-workers at the time of the incident, he failed to present them to prove his alibi. It reiterated the established rule that denial and alibi are inherently weak and have always been viewed by the courts with disfavor because they can easily be concocted.
The RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in each of the two cases, and to pay AAA and CCC the amounts of P75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 each as moral damages, and P30,000.00 each as exemplary damages.
The CA's Ruling
The CA agreed with the RTC that the prosecution successfully discharged the burden of proving the appellant is guilty of the crime of statutory rape beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that both AAA and CCC were straightforward and categorical in their narrations on how the appellant separately raped them.
The CA affirmed the RTC's joint decision, subject to the reduction of the awarded damages. The Court ordered the appellant to pay AAA and CCC P50,000.00 each as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 each as moral damages and P30,000.00 each as exemplary damages. The damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment.
The Court's Ruling
The Court affirms the findings of the RTC and the CA that the appellant separately raped AAA and CCC. Sexual intercourse with a girl below twelve years of age is statutory rape. Force and intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place. 2 The Certificate of Live Births of both AAA and CCC, which were presented in evidence, show that they were under twelve years old. ISCDEA
The appellant's defense of alibi must fail. It is well settled that a categorical and positive identification of the accused, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the witnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, both of which are negative and self-serving defenses. 3 Significantly, other than the self-serving testimony of the appellant, no other evidence was offered to support the alibi that the accused presented.
The CA erred in the amounts of damages awarded to AAA and CCC. While finding that the appellant committed the crimes of statutory rape, the CA ruled that there was absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance and thus reduced the damages the RTC awarded. Both civil indemnity and moral damages were reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. This reduction is erroneous as the damages must be maintained at P75,000.00 in accordance with established jurisprudence. 4
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolves to DISMISS the appeal of Elizer Espartero y Geron and AFFIRMS the joint decision dated July 28, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89, with the MODIFICATION that the damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until they are fully paid. 5
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurred by Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Justice Manuel M. Barrios.
2. People v. Espinosa, 633 SCRA 36.
3. People v. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 506, 529; People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 625, 634.
4. People v. Osma, Jr., 679 SCRA, 428, 443; People v. Delos Reyes, 684 SCRA 260, 282-283.
5. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board, Circular No. 799, s. 2013, effective July 1, 2013, Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr. (G.R. No. 189871) dated August 13, 2013.