THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217981. November 11, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PABLO GABUT A.K.A. "ABLOY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 11, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217981(People of the Philippines v. Pablo Gabut a.k.a. "Abloy"). — The Court resolves to:
(1) NOTE:
(a) the letter dated August 27, 2015 of Gerardo F. Padilla, MPA, Bureau of Corrections, Davao Prison and Penal Farm, B.E. Dujali, Davao del Norte, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since December 29, 2011; and
(b) accused-appellant's Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated September 15, 2015 stating that the arguments advanced in appellant's brief have sufficiently and ably traversed the issues in the case at bar, hence, he is adopting in toto all the allegations and arguments contained therein in lieu of supplemental brief; and
(2) NOTE and GRANT the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation and Motion dated September 14, 2015 stating that it adopts its Appellee's Brief of February 4, 2013 which was filed before the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City and as such, no supplemental brief shall be filed by it.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented in the present appeal, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision 1 promulgated on September 16, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00993-MIN as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
In the adverted Decision, the CA convicted the accused-appellant Pablo Gabut a.k.a. "Abloy" of rape under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 8353, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the eligibility for parole and to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for moral damages, and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) for exemplary damages, affirming with modification the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 37, in Criminal Case No. 2005-298.
The CA ruled that the court a quo did not err in giving credence to the testimony of the complainant pointing to the accused-appellant's culpability. The appellate court observed that the prosecution eyewitness narrated the incident in a candid and straightforward manner, and the inconsistencies in her testimony are minor and inconsequential flaws that strengthen, rather than impair, her credibility. Furthermore, the CA opined that evidence of the defense is insufficient to debunk the prosecution's case.
In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue, and when her testimony satisfies the test of credibility, an accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. 2 Here, the RTC was sufficiently convinced of AAA's credibility, as well as that of her testimony. The RTC observed that "[AAA] testified directly, positively, and in a straightforward manner." 3 It is elementary that the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of a witness and of her testimony is given great weight because the trial judge, having personally observed the private complainant's conduct and demeanour as a witness, was thereby enabled to discern if she was telling or inventing the truth. 4 Further, the CA affirmed the trial court's evaluation. Hence, the trial court's assessment is binding on this Court, and it becomes the burden of the accused to project to us facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted which, when duly considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case differently. 5 Appellant failed to establish that both the RTC and CA misapprehended the testimonies or evidence presented by the parties during the trial that will affect its outcome.
On the other hand, the allegation of the defense that the case is but a malicious suit is, as pointed out by the appellate court, unsubstantiated. 6 Furthermore, the positive identification by AAA of the accused-appellant trumps the latter's alibi, even if it is corroborated. It has been held that a corroborating testimony for alibi "becomes less plausible when it is corroborated by relatives and friends who may not be impartial witnesses." 7
Thus, appellant's conviction for rape must be sustained.
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim of rape is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The death penalty cannot, however, be imposed in view of Republic Act No. 9346. 8 In lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole shall be imposed. Hence, the Court finds proper the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole imposed by the CA upon accused-appellant who was found guilty of raping her then 16-year old sister "AAA."
The CA's awards of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity, P50,000.00 for moral damages, and P25,000.00 for exemplary damages must, however, be modified. Pursuant to recent jurisprudence, 9 We hold that "AAA" is entitled to P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages considering that the death penalty would have been imposed. Finally, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 16, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00993-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accused-Appellant Pablo Gabut a.k.a. "Abloy" is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 8353, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the eligibility for parole and to pay Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) for civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos ((P75,000.00) for moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) for exemplary damages, with interest on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the Court's resolution until full payment. (Jardeleza, J., recused himself from the case due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Del Castillo, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated June 3, 2015.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-11. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and concurred in by Associate Justices Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and Pablito A. Perez.
2. People v. Montesa, G.R. No. 181899, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 317, 331.
3. Records, p. 57.
4. People v. Lantano, G.R. No. 176734, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 640, 651-652; People v. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621, 629.
5. People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184958, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 280, 288; Gerasta v. People, G.R. No. 176981, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 503, 512.
6. Rollo, p. 9.
7. People v. Albalate, Jr., G.R. No. 174480, December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA 535, 549; People v. Manalili, G.R. No. 184598, June 23, 2009, 590 SCRA 695, 711.
8. AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES.
9. People v. Balute, G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015, citing People v. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 797.