SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198447. November 23, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TIMMY GARIDO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 November 2015 which reads as follows:
''G.R. No. 198447 (People of the Philippines v. Timmy Garido). — We resolve the appeal, filed by appellant Timmy Garido, assailing the March 18, 2011 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC- No. 00877. The CA decision affirmed the April 30, 2008 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 42, Balangiga, Eastern Samar, in toto, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of child abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.
In its April 30, 2008 decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of child abuse. 3 It gave credence to AAA's testimony that her father, herein appellant, inserted his penis in her vagina on the "midnight of New Year's day." It observed that AAA "broke down and cried" every time she recounted her painful ordeal, and ruled that her spontaneous crying during her testimony spoke well of her credibility. Accordingly, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA ruled that AAA positively identified the appellant as the person who sexually assaulted her in January 2006 by inserting his penis in her private part. It added that AAA did not waver from this identification, despite the defense's gruelling cross-examination. It added that AAA's testimony was corroborated by the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Haydee Moscarre-Canillas showing that AAA had a healed hymenal scar, and was 20 weeks pregnant. The CA further added that per the testimony of Dr. Rosarita Enciso, the Municipal Health Officer of Balangiga, there had been a penetration of the victim's vulva.
The CA held that AAA cannot be expected to give a very accurate answer to every question propounded to her regarding the sexual abuse since she was only 13 years old at the time of the sexual abuse and 15 at the time she testified in court. It maintained slight discrepancies in the child witness's statement do not affect her credibility as long as the testimony "is consistent and clear relative to the material points necessary for the conviction of the crime." 4
Our Ruling
The appellant's conviction stands.
Sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 has three elements: (1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years old.
All these elements have been established by the prosecution. First, AAA declared on the witness stand that appellant undressed her, placed himself on top of her, and then inserted his penis inside her vagina; as a result of which, she "felt pain." Both the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony to be clear, candid, and straightforward. We find nothing in the records to place AAA's testimony in a suspicious light, more so since she was only a minor when the incident happened and when she testified in court. It is settled that the testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame to which they would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is proven not true.
We reject the appellant's argument that the inconsistencies in AAA's testimony affected her credibility. Faultless testimony cannot be expected of a child-victim, for she may be trying not to recall, much less, recount in open court every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and appalling outrage she has gone through, as it would be too painful to remember. The appellant also did not show that her daughter had any improper motive to testify against him.
Notably, AAA's testimony was corroborated by the findings of Dr. Enciso and Dr. Canillas showing that the victim suffered hymenal scars, and that the victim was 20 weeks pregnant. It is settled that when a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the testimony is sufficient to support a conviction. cAaDHT
Second, the appellant, being the father of AAA, used his moral ascendancy and influence over her daughter to consummate his bestial desires. Sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will. 5
Third, AAA was 13 years old at the time of the sexual abuse, as established by her birth certificate.
On the penalty imposed, Section 5 (b), Article II of R.A. No. 7610 punishes those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Corollarily, Section 31 (c), Article XII of R.A. No. 7610 expressly provides that "[t]he penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity." Hence, we affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua that the CA imposed.
Finally, we point out that both the RTC and the CA did not award indemnities to the victim. It has been proven, however, that AAA was below 18, and the offender was her father. We thus award to AAA the indemnities given to victims when the fact of sexual intercourse is proven, and when both the minority of the victim and her relationship to the accused are proven, as follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 18, 2011, in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC- No. 00877 with the MODIFICATION that the appellant is further ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. All the damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, computed from the date of finality of this resolution until their full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-16; penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez.
2. CA rollo, pp. 27-47; penned by Presiding Judge Rowena Nieves Tan.
3. The prosecution charged the appellant with 2 counts of Child Abuse under R.A. No. 7610, docketed as Criminal Case No. 0027 and Criminal Case No. 0028, respectively. The RTC, however, acquitted the appellant in Criminal Case No. 0027 on the ground of reasonable doubt.
4. Supra note 1, at 11.
5. Caballo v. People, G.R. 198732, June 10, 2013, p. 9.
* Velasco, Jr., J., designated as Acting member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special Order No. 2282 dated November 13, 2015, Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2281 dated November 13, 2015.