ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218131. April 3, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.AMADO HEMOR y SUSANO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218131 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versusAMADO HEMOR y SUSANO, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the assailed Decision. 1 The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant is indeed guilty. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the Court of Appeals (CA), were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
Accused-appellant averred that the testimony of the victim AAA 2 (victim) was marred by significant inconsistencies that cast doubt as to the veracity of the charges against him. He advanced that the victim failed to recall the particular dates when she was raped and the various times these rape incidents occurred. It must be emphasized that in this jurisdiction, the testimony of the private complainant in rape cases is scrutinized with utmost caution. 3 The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and is not allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. 4 In the case at bar, the Court agrees with the CA that the victim's recount of her debasing rape in the hands of accused-appellant has the hallmark of truth and deserves full faith and credence. The victim distinctly identified accused-appellant and described how he defiled her in detail. Testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence. 5 Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true. 6
As to accused-appellant's allegations that: (1) the medico-legal report submitted by PCI Editha Martinez (PCI Martinez) belies the crime of rape since it indicates that there was "no evident injury" on the victim's private parts; (2) Dr. Irene Baluyut's 7 report which revealed that there were lacerations on the victim's hymen cannot be given any weight since she was not presented in court; and (3) Dr. Bernadette Madrid's testimony validating Dr. Baluyut's findings were of little significance since the former was not the one who prepared the report, the Court stresses that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. 8 In fact, a doctor's certificate is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape. 9 In the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim, and not the findings of the medico-legal officer, is the most important element to prove that the felony had been committed. 10 As earlier established, the victim's testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, thus, deserves full faith and credence.
Accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi fail against the positive identification made by the rape victim. 11 Moreover, accused-appellant failed to prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
In light of recent jurisprudential rules, since the victim is twelve (12) years of age, and the act committed by accused-appellant, i.e., the insertion of the accused-appellant's fingers into the victim's vagina, is covered by the definition of lascivious conduct under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, the crime of rape through sexual assault shall be designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610" to impose the proper penalty which is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. 12 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant should thus fall within the range of prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum. 13 Thus, accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. 14
Finally, the damages awarded are hereby modified. In Criminal Case Nos. 53-V-07 and 55-V-07, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall be P75,000.00 each. 15 In Criminal Case No. 54-V-07, accused-appellant is ordered to pay P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 as exemplary damages. 16 Moreover, as Section 31 (f) of R.A. No. 7610 imposes a fine upon the offender, accused-appellant is also ordered to pay a fine of P15,000.00. 17
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06015 finding accused-appellant AMADO HEMOR y SUSANO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:
1. In Criminal Case No. 53-V-07, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages;
2. In Criminal Case No. 54-V-07, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as fine, Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as moral damages, Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as exemplary damages; and
3. In Criminal Case No. 55-V-07, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages.
Except for the fine, all monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-17. Decision dated May 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06015 penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Carmelita S. Manahan.
2. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
3.People v. Jalosjos, 421 Phil. 43, 68 (2001).
4.Id. at 68.
5.People v. Veloso, 703 Phil. 541, 553 (2013), citing People v. Salazar, 648 Phil. 520, 531 (2010).
6.Id. at 553, citing People v. Salazar, id. at 531.
7. Also spelled as "Baluyot" in some parts of the rollo.
8.People v. Bauit, G.R. No. 223102, February 14, 2018, p. 6, citing People v. Rubio, 683 Phil. 714, 726 (2012).
9.Id. at 6-7, citing People v. Rubio, id. at 726.
10.Id. at 7, citing People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 566 (2008).
11. See People v. Quiros, 639 Phil. 118, 131-132 (2010), citing People v. Isla, Jr., 432 Phil. 414, 431 (2002).
12. See People v. Caoili, G.R. Nos. 196342 & 196848, August 8, 2017, 835 SCRA 107, 154 and Dimakuta v. People, 771 Phil. 641, 670 (2015).
13. See People v. Rellota, 640 Phil. 471, 497 (2010), citing People v. Candaza, 524 Phil. 589, 608 (2006).
14.Id. at 498.
15.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
16.People v. Villacampa, G.R. No. 216057, January 8, 2018, p. 12.
17.Id. at 13.