FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193506. April 7, 2014.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN GONZAGA y MELLIJOR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 7, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 193506 — THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,versus EFREN GONZAGA y MELLIJOR,accused-appellant.
On appeal is the January 15, 2009 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the judgment 2 of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, of Tagbilaran City, Bohol, finding appellant guilty of the rape of AAA. 3
Briefly, the prosecution proved the following facts. In the evening of May 22, 2001, AAA was sleeping in her one-room house with her two young children, aged, 4 and 1 1/2 years old, and her two younger brothers, aged 11 and 12 years old. They were alone in the house as AAA's husband, BBB, was in Mandaue City working. At around 10 o'clock that night, AAA and her siblings were awakened by appellant who called out to BBB. AAA did not recognize the voice, so she remained silent. Suddenly, the unlocked door to their house was opened. While carrying her baby, AAA lighted a kerosene lamp. When AAA raised the lamp, she saw appellant by the door. Appellant grabbed AAA's arm and blew out the lamp. She asked appellant what he wanted and appellant answered that he wanted "only a little thing" from her. Appellant then started to undress AAA who tried to fight back. She tried to fend off appellant but failed to do so because she was carrying her baby. Her siblings were also not able to help her as appellant threatened to kill all of them. She pleaded for appellant to stop but her plea went unheeded. Appellant held AAA on the shoulder and forced her to lie down on the bench. Appellant then placed himself on top of AAA, unzipped his pants, and inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. After satisfying his lust, appellant warned her not tell anyone or else he would come back. He then left the house. 4 cHECAS
The following day, AAA went to her aunt's house and told her what appellant did to her. After proceeding to the house of AAA's parents, they reported the incident to the barangay officials and the police. Since AAA did not know the name of appellant at that time but only his appearance, the police and Barangay Kagawad Diomedes Pantinople conducted surveillance. After three days, appellant was arrested while he was at the wake of the barangay captain. Kagawad Pantinople told AAA to go to the wake for she might encounter the one who raped her. AAA pointed to appellant who was then playing cards at the wake. 5
For his defense, appellant denied that he raped AAA and claimed that they were lovers. According to appellant, he and AAA had a relationship since AAA's husband was seldom at home. He claimed that AAA's husband is his relative since their grandmothers are sisters. On the night of the rape, appellant claimed that he and AAA had an agreement to meet at AAA's house. In fact, they even agreed on a signal using a kerosene lamp. If she lights the kerosene lamp, it would mean that he has to pass by her house. After calling AAA, she went out of the house. They had sexual intercourse on the bench. AAA went inside her house when she heard her baby crying. 6
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties. He was directed to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages. The RTC held that there was no question as to appellant's criminal liability since he was positively identified by AAA and the other prosecution's witnesses as the perpetrator. The RTC observed that AAA's testimony was positive and straightforward and declared her to be a truthful and sincere witness. The trial court also noted that AAA lost no time in reporting the rape to her aunt and the authorities, while appellant's sweetheart defense was uncorroborated. The RTC added that if they were really lovers, AAA and appellant would have known each other and AAA would not have gone through the surveillance process just to identify him. CDAEHS
On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The CA agreed with the RTC that threat and intimidation attended the commission of the rape. AAA testified that appellant threatened to cut her neck and that of the children should she resist him. Even assuming that appellant was not carrying a dangerous weapon with him during the rape and the suspicion of AAA that appellant was armed was merely speculative, still, the threats by appellant coupled with the genuine belief that he was armed were enough to instill fear on AAA such that she was constrained to submit to appellant. DIETcC
After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court affirms the decision of the CA. We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. 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, misappreciated or misunderstood substantial 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. 7 Other than his claim of denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. On the contrary, the RTC found that AAA's testimony was straightforward, logical and credible. Further, the defense of consensual sex must be established by strong evidence in order to be worthy of judicial acceptance. Appellant's "sweetheart" theory, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence — some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like. 8 Other than appellant's testimony, however, no convincing evidence was presented to substantiate his theory. Notably, apart from appellant's allegation that he and AAA were sweethearts, no love letter, memento or picture was presented by him to prove that such romantic relationship existed. And as correctly observed by the RTC, even supposing that the sweetheart theory is true, a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will for love is not a license for lust. 9
As to the amount of damages, while we are in accord with the amounts awarded by the trial court as moral damages and civil indemnity, the Court deems it likewise proper to award exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000 by way of correction for the public good considering the circumstances under which the rape was committed. Likewise, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court also awards interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from the date of finality of this resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The January 15, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00211 affirming the conviction of appellant Efren Gonzaga y Mellijor for rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellant is further ordered to pay the victim exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000. DEICaA
Appellant is likewise ordered to pay legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
With costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Stephen C. Cruz concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00211.
2. CA rollo, pp. 24-32. Penned by Presiding Judge Baudilio K. Dosdos.
3. The victim's real name and personal circumstances, as well as any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, are withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006).
4. Rollo, pp. 5-6; CA rollo, pp. 25-26.
5. Id. at 7; id. at 26.
6. Id. at 8; id. at 27.
7. See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
8. People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 175836, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 465, 470.
9. People v. Pulanco, 462 Phil. 224, 232 (2003); People v. Jimenez, 362 Phil. 222, 225 & 234 (1999).