SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229673. March 27, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOJO FAMPO Y FAJICULAY, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 March 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229673 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versusJOJO FAMPO y FAJICULAY, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the Decision 1 dated October 20, 2015 of the Court of Appeals, Tenth Division (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05015. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Jojo Fampo y Fajiculay (Jojo) is indeed guilty of the crime of Rape. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, there being no supplemental briefs filed, were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 2 Thus, when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the victim, the findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. 3 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the RTC's 4 appreciation of the evidence, which was affirmed by the CA.
The Court finds no merit in the following defenses raised by Jojo: (1) that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt because according to him, private complainant AAA's 5 (AAA) identification that he is the malefactor of the crime is doubtful, and thus, consistent with his defense of alibi; (2) that it is simply hard to believe that he would intentionally wake up early in the morning just to rape someone in her own residence; and (3) there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and BBB, which create reasonable doubt on their identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. 6
Anent the first contention of Jojo, the CA is correct in ruling that it was Jojo who indeed had carnal knowledge with AAA. The Court has consistently held that it will not disturb findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses. 7 The evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. 8 In the instant case, AAA was clear, positive, and straightforward in testifying on the details of what transpired on September 4, 2007. She was unfaltering in her testimony during the grueling cross-examination by the counsel for the accused. She maintained that she was raped and was steadfast in pointing the responsibility to the accused. 9 Her testimony was corroborated by the testimony of BBB who was also present during the incident. The fact that she was raped was also supported by the Medico-Legal Certification issued by Dr. Karina P. Acosta stating that she had fresh lacerations in her genitalia. Verily, his defense of denial and alibi deserve scant consideration. CAIHTE
As to the second contention of Jojo, the CA is likewise correct in stating that it deserves no merit. Jurisprudence is consistent in stating that lust is no respecter of time and place and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of place. 10 Thus, the fact that it was committed at 3:00 o'clock in the morning in the house of the victim is of no consequence.
Lastly, as regards the third allegation of Jojo, the Court likewise agrees with the CA that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and BBB do not create a reasonable doubt on the identification of Jojo as the perpetrator of the crime. Inconsistencies in the victim's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. 11 Moreover, AAA is a minor. Needless to say, it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, because when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 12 A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as a mere concoction. 13
Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the prosecution had completely proved the guilt of Jojo beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape.
However, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, as modified by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 14 in cases of rape, the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated October 20, 2015 of the Court of Appeals, Tenth Division, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05015. The Decision finding accused-appellant Jojo Fampo y Fajiculay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is ordered to pay the private complainant ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as moral damages, and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
4. See Decision dated April 18, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Pallocan West, Batangas City, Branch 1 in Crim. Case No. 15102, penned by Presiding Judge Florencio S. Arellano; CA rollo, pp. 8-16.
5. 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 her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
6.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
7.People v. Beduya, 641 Phil. 399, 412 (2010).
8.People v. Banzuela, 723 Phil. 797, 815 (2013), citing People v. Sapigao, Jr., 614 Phil. 589, 599 (2009).
9.Rollo, p. 11.
10.People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 777 (2014).
11.People v. Mangune, 698 Phil. 759, 770 (2012), citing People v. Dion, 668 Phil. 333, 348 (2011).
12.People v. De Guzman, 423 Phil. 313, 331 (2001).
13.People v. Hallarte, 731 Phil. 327, 337 (2014).
14.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).