People v. Garcia

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 217662. February 21, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ANGELES GARCIA a.k.a. "LOLO", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 21, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 217662(People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Angeles Garcia a.k.a. "Lolo," accused-appellant) — We resolve the appeal from the 23 July 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05799.

THE FACTS

On 23 February 2005, accused Angeles Garcia @ "Lolo" (Garcia) was charged and convicted before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Malolos, Bulacan (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 688-M-2005 of the crime of rape through sexual intercourse. 2 After Garcia entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued.

In proving the prosecution's case, the victim, AAA, was presented to prove that Garcia had raped her several times while she and her mother lived in the house of the latter's live-in partner. AAA narrated the last rape episode as follows:

Sometime in May 2004, while AAA was sleeping inside the bedroom, Garcia, the father of her mother's live-in partner, woke AAA up by tapping her right forearm. AAA, knowing what Garcia wanted, replied, "ayoko po!" Ignoring her protest, Garcia removed AAA's clothes, kissed her, and fondled her right breast. While Garcia was doing all this, AAA was trying to reject his advances by saying "ayoko na po, masakit po." Eventually, Garcia got mad and threatened AAA that he would kill her mother if she continued to refuse him. Thereafter, Garcia placed himself on top of AAA and inserted his penis into AAA's vagina.

AAA was only fourteen (14) years old when this incident happened. 3

A year later, AAA confided to her aunt about what Garcia had been doing to her all this time. Her aunt informed AAA's mother and all three (3) of them proceeded to the police station to report the incident. Garcia was arrested shortly after.

AAA was subjected to a physical examination where the medico-legal examiner concluded that AAA was physically no longer a "virgin." 4

On his part, Garcia confirmed that AAA's family lived in their house but they were no longer living there in May 2004. Garcia denied AAA's story and said that these accusations were brought about because he was being blamed for the quarrels of his son and AAA's mother. The only time Garcia saw AAA and her mother again was in 2005 when he was arrested. CAIHTE

The RTC Ruling

On 8 May 2012, the RTC rendered a decision 5 finding Garcia guilty because the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of rape. The RTC gave greater weight to AAA's version as opposed to Garcia's weak and self-serving denial. The RTC also did not give credit to Garcia's claim that the charge against him was a result of the conflict between AAA's mother and his son because it was unnatural for a parent to use her offspring and subject her to embarrassment and stigma just to cause him trouble. Hence, the RTC ruled:

WHEREFORE, accused Angeles Garcia @ Lolo is hereby found GUILTY for the crime of rape as his guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby ordered to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Accused Angeles Garcia @ Lolo is hereby further sentenced to pay offended party [AAA] the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. 6

The CA Ruling

On appeal, Garcia argued that the circumstance of force and intimidation was not sufficiently proved by the prosecution because there was no sincere struggle to stop his alleged sexual advances. Garcia also pointed out that the trial court might have overlooked the ulterior motive of AAA and her mother in filing a case against him.

In the assailed decision, the CA affirmed Garcia's conviction saying that force and intimidation were duly proven when AAA testified that she was gripped with fear for her mother's life. 7 The CA sustained AAA's credibility and that her testimony was enough to prove that Garcia was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 8

However, the award for civil indemnity and damages were modified, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 8, 2012 of the RTC, Branch 18, Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 688-M-2005 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award of civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00, the award of moral damages is increased to P75,000.00, and an additional award for exemplary damages is hereby imposed in the amount of P30,000.00. 9

OUR RULING

We find no merit in the appeal.

In rape cases where no other person could accurately account for what happened except for the victim and the accused, the witnesses' credibility plays a big factor. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. 10 Matters of credibility are addressed basically to the trial judge who is in a better position than the appellate court to appreciate the weight and evidentiary value of the testimonies of witnesses who have personally appeared before him. 11 The appellate courts are far detached from the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying during trial and have to rely solely on the records of the case in its review. On the matter of credence and credibility of witnesses, therefore, we acknowledge said limitations and recognize the advantage of the trial court whose findings must be given due deference. 12

As a result, the findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon us. On the question of whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, the court having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. 13 Without any clear showing that the trial court and the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, this rule should not be disturbed. 14

After a careful review, we are convinced that AAA's unwavering narration of how she was raped by Garcia is worthy of belief. We take note that AAA's direct examination began on 12 October 2005 and ended on 26 June 2006. During the three (3) times she was placed on the witness stand, AAA remained steadfast on the details of how she was raped. Even during her extensive cross-examination, AAA was still able to recall what happened during the last time Garcia raped her.

Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For some, however, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life, and which her conscious and subconscious mind would not easily forget. To recall this unwanted episode in one's life, not to mention having to repeat the memory over and over again just to tell what really happened, is something we have to consider especially when it causes humiliation and mortification to the victim.

In People v. Piosang, 15 we held:

Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Considering her tender age, AAA could not have invented a horrible story. 16 x x x

In the present case, we put a premium on AAA's consistent and positive testimony considering that she was a minor when the rape happened, not to mention that Garcia had moral ascendancy over her.

The force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible. The parties' relative age, size, and strength should be taken into account in evaluating the existence of the element of force in the crime of rape. The degree of force which may not suffice when the victim is an adult may be more than enough if employed against a person of tender age. Force or intimidation is not limited to physical force. As long as it is present and brings the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.

We are not persuaded by Garcia's insistence that the absence of any resistance on the part of AAA raised doubts as to whether the sexual congress was without her consent. The failure of the victim to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapist is not tantamount to consent. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. DETACa

With respect to Garcia's defense of denial, it is an oft-repeated rule that positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. 17

Lastly, Garcia would like us to believe that the rape case filed against him resulted from the domestic conflict between AAA's mother and his son. On this point, we agree with the conclusion reached by the RTC, to wit:

This Court does not give credit to the claim of the accused that the reason why this case was filed against him was because of the quarrels between the parents of [AAA] and they wanted to blame him for that. No mother would possibly use her child to falsely cry [for] rape just to punish a parent-in-law. It is quite unusual for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment and even stigma. A rape victim's testimony against her parent or a person whom she looked up to as a grandfather is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders — these values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families and it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her father (or one whom she looks up to as a grandfather) if such were not true. When the offended party is a young immature girl between the ages of 12 to 16 (as in this case), courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed by court trial if her accusation were untrue. 18

All said, we affirm the conviction of appellant for the crime of simple rape.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, we DENY the appeal and AFFIRM the 23 July 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05799 in toto.

SO ORDERED."

 

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser.

2. Records, Vol. I, p. 2.

3.Id. at 7.

4.Id. at 8.

5.Id. at 213-222; penned by Presiding Judge Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo.

6.Id. at 221-222.

7. CA rollo, p. 87.

8.Id. at 89.

9.Id. at 90.

10.People v. CA, 755 Phil. 80, 110 (2015).

11.Valbueco, Inc. v. Province of Bataan, 710 Phil. 633, 652 (2013) citing Sapu-an v. Court of Appeals, 289 Phil. 319, 325 (1992).

12.People v. Vergara, 713 Phil. 224, 234 (2013).

13.People v. Burce, 730 Phil. 576, 586 (2014).

14.People v. Basao, 697 Phil. 193, 209 (2012).

15. 710 Phil. 519 (2013).

16.Id. at 526.

17. Id. at 528 citing People v. Agcanas, 674 Phil. 626, 632 (2011) further citing People v. Caisip, 352 Phil. 1058, 1065 (1998).

18. Records, Vol. I, p. 220.