SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205311. April 7, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO HERMOGENO Y CASTRO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 April 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 205311 (People of the Philippines v. Leo Hermogeno y Castro). — This is an appeal from the decision 1 dated June 20, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming in toto the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 47, finding accused-appellant Leo Hermogeno y Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
The Facts
The rape was committed in the evening of December 24, 2004 while AAA was alone in their house in Barangay Bantugan, Pozzorubio, Pangasinan and was preparing dinner. After finishing her cooking, she went to her room to change clothes. The accused-appellant at that point suddenly appeared, grabbed her by the hand, boxed and pulled her. AAA tried to fight back by kicking him but her resistance proved futile. She failed to shout because the accused-appellant covered her mouth with one of his hands. After the rape, he left the victim in a state of shock. TEcADS
AAA's mother and sister found her trembling and crying. They inquired from her what happened but AAA refused to talk.
In the morning of the next day, December 25, 2004, the accused-appellant, accompanied by two (2) barangay officials, went to AAA's house and talked to her mother with the proposal that he would separate from his wife so that he and AAA could live as husband and wife. AAA's mother rejected the offer as the accused-appellant is a married man.
It was only in the morning of December 26, 2004 when AAA told her sister that she had been raped by the accused-appellant.
The accused-appellant denied the charge against him, alleging that at the time of the incident, he was in his house watching TV with his wife.
The Ruling of the RTC
In its April 14, 2009 decision, 2 the RTC found that the sexual assault indeed took place and that it was committed against AAA's will and consent. The accused-appellant hit AAA in her stomach, weakening her. The complainant cried and shivered whenever she saw the accused-appellant inside the courtroom. According to the physician who examined her, AAA suffered post traumatic stress because of the sexual assault committed against her.
The RTC rejected the accused-appellant's defense that he was in his house with his wife when the alleged rape was committed; alibi has always been held to be a weak defense, being a negative and self-serving assertion. 3 For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the place of the crime at the time of its commission. 4
In the present case, only a wall separates the house of AAA and that of the accused-appellant. Owing to the short distance as well as the facility of access between their two places, it was not improbable for the accused-appellant to be at the crime scene. These, in addition to the fact that the accused-appellant's witness is his own wife, cannot but create the gravest doubts on the veracity of his alibi.
The RTC also ruled that the accused-appellant's offer to live with AAA is similar to an offer for settlement and an admission of guilt.
The RTC sentenced the accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA found no reason to reverse the RTC decision. The CA — based on the records and the transcript of stenographic notes — found that AAA's candid and clear-cut recounting of how she was raped bore the earmarks of credibility. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies referred only to minor details and collateral matters that did not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that minor incongruencies are actually indicative of honest and unrehearsed declarations and responses of witnesses which even enhance their credibility. 5
The CA affirmed en toto the RTC's decision of April 14, 2009.
The Ruling of this Court
We affirm the accused-appellant's conviction. The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing that the court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. 6 We find no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC, which the CA subsequently affirmed. DHATcE
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal of accused-appellant Leo Hermogeno y Castro and AFFIRM the decision dated June 20, 2012 of the Court of Appeals. Following recent jurisprudence, 7 the awarded damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision until their full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Romeo F. Barza; rollo, pp. 2-16.
2. Docketed as Criminal Case No. U-13684; CA rollo, pp. 17-23.
3. People v. Radas, 531 SCRA 554, 564.
4. People v. Surongon, 527 SCRA 577, 586; People v. de Guzman, 530 SCRA 631, 637; and People v. Delim, 533 SCRA 366, 379.
5. People v. Andal, 344 Phil. 889, 907.
6. Nombrefia v. People, 513 SCRA 369.
7. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Circular No. 799, s. 2013, effective July 1, 2013; Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr., G.R. No. 18971, August 13, 2013.