FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202128. June 19, 2013.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WELFREDO GARCIA y FLORES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 19, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202128 — THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus WELFREDO GARCIA y FLORES, accused-appellant.
On appeal is the December 28, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the judgment 2 of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 172, of Valenzuela City finding appellant guilty of raping 27-year-old AAA, 3 an alleged mental retardate.
Briefly, the prosecution proved the following facts. At around 3 o'clock in the afternoon of February 12, 2009, appellant approached AAA somewhere in Lamesa St., Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City and gave her ice candy. Thereafter, he brought AAA to a nearby house. He pulled AAA's hand to get her inside the house, but she resisted, saying "ayoko." Nonetheless, appellant managed to pull her inside. Despite AAA's resistance, appellant also succeeded in undressing her. Then he laid AAA down on the floor and locked the door. After appellant undressed himself also, he inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina which caused her to feel pain. 4 Appellant then licked AAA's vagina, kissed her breast, and put his penis into her mouth for a long time. After satisfying his lust, appellant threatened AAA that he would kill her brother if she told him what happened to her. AAA then got dressed and went home. She eventually told her mother and sister-in-law what appellant did to her. 5 THEDCA
At around 1 o'clock in the afternoon of February 14, 2009, AAA's mother and sister-in-law brought AAA to the police station to report the rape. There, AAA told the police that appellant was working in JBW Plastic Company located at Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City. AAA and the police proceeded to the factory where appellant was working as a security guard. When appellant's fellow security guard called appellant out, AAA readily pointed to appellant as the one who raped her. 6
For his defense, appellant denied that he raped AAA. He claimed that his duty was at nighttime, from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., seven days a week, and he would sleep after his shift. He alleged that on February 12, 2009, he slept right after his shift and only woke up at around 5:00 p.m. He alleged that he was a stay-in security guard and his sleeping quarters was just about five meters away from the front gate of his workplace. He denied knowing AAA. 7
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties. He was likewise ordered to pay AAA the sum of P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. The RTC found that while the prosecution was not able to present evidence on AAA's mental condition, it was able to prove that appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with AAA without her consent. The RTC added that AAA's failure to shout for help does not negate rape or signify voluntariness or consent.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but modified the award of monetary damages by reducing the civil indemnity and the moral damages to P50,000 each. The CA agreed with the RTC that the prosecution has clearly established that appellant employed force or intimidation to satisfy his sexual appetite on AAA. It likewise agreed with the RTC that AAA's failure to resist appellant tenaciously does not mean that she voluntarily submitted to the rape. DCSETa
After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court affirms the decision of the CA as we find no cogent reason to disturb its decision. There is no showing that either the RTC or the CA 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 has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. Absent any showing in this case that the lower courts overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated significant 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. 8 The Court also notes that other than his claim of denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. The RTC and CA found that AAA categorically and positively identified appellant as the one who raped her.
As to exemplary damages, the same is hereby increased from P25,000 to P30,000 in line with recent jurisprudence on the matter.
However, we impose interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded from the finality of this decision until fully paid, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 9
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The December 28, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04691 affirming appellant Welfredo Garcia y Flores's conviction for rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the amount of exemplary damages is increased from P25,000 to P30,000.
Interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all the damages awarded in this case from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
With costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED." DTAHEC
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-20. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04691.
2.CA rollo, pp. 9-14. Penned by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones.
3.The victim's real name and personal circumstances and those of the victim's immediate family or household members are withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426.
4.TSN, February 15, 2010, p. 18.
5.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
6.Id. at 5.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8.See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
9.See People v. Taguibuya, G.R. No. 180497, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 685, 693-694.