SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207630. June 27, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NARCISO JORQUIA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 June 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207630 (People of the Philippines v. Narciso Jorquia). — We resolve the appeal of appellant Narciso Jorquia from the November 29, 2012 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00735-MIN. The CA affirmed the July 13, 2008 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Malaybalay City, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.
The Case
In convicting the appellant of two (2) counts of rape, the RTC gave credence to the testimony of 12-year-old AAA that the appellant, through force and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with her twice on July 26, 2003, at an abandoned house owned by one Christopher Comajig. 3 The RTC held that AAA's declaration was clear, definite, and convincing and there was no indication of a concocted recital. It further found that the medical findings of Dr. Ramona Santiago corroborated AAA's testimony, revealing that the occurrence of AAA's hymenal injuries coincides with the date of the rape incidents. 4
The RTC disregarded the appellant's defense of denial and alibi. It held that the appellant's defense cannot prevail over AAA's positive and straightforward testimony. 5
Accordingly, the RTC imposed on the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and P25,000.00 as actual damages, for each count of rape. 6
On appeal, the appellant contended that: (1) AAA's testimony was too loose and vague to merit the appellant's conviction; (2) the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses were not credible enough to warrant belief; and (3) AAA's testimony was full of inconsistencies which impair the veracity of her allegations. Thus, the appellant argued that his only defense of denial and alibi should not be taken against him. 7
The CA, in its November 29, 2012 decision, affirmed the RTC's ruling.
The CA sustained the RTC's finding of AAA's credibility and rejected the appellant's arguments. It found that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses pertain only to collateral matters which were not sufficient to discredit AAA. 8 It held that AAA's testimony proved the fact that the appellant had carnal knowledge of her. It noted that this was further corroborated by Dr. Santiago's medical findings, showing injuries on AAA's hymen. 9 The CA also stressed that a child of tender years cannot be expected to recount every detail of her harrowing experience. 10 Moreover, it pointed out that neither AAA nor her parents were impelled by any ill motive to testify against the appellant. 11
Our Ruling
We DISMISS the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.
Under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, there is rape when the offender had sexual intercourse with a woman through force, threat, or intimidation.
In the present case, carnal knowledge was evidenced by AAA's testimony. AAA categorically stated how the appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her twice on July 26, 2003. AAA testified how the appellant sexually abused her by dragging her towards the abandoned house at around 8:00 p.m. Upon arrival, the appellant undressed AAA and took off his own garments. He then mounted her, inserted his penis in her private part, and did a push and pull motion. 12 AAA felt pain and tried to shout but the appellant, who was armed with a knife, covered her mouth and threatened her not to tell anybody. In like manner, AAA narrated that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her the second time at around 11:00 p.m. 13 CAIHTE
The appellant insisted that the RTC and the CA erred in giving full faith and credit to AAA's testimony because it was replete with inconsistencies. We find this argument unmeritorious.
In this case, we point out that AAA was only twelve (12) years old when the appellant sexually abused her to satisfy his bestial desire. Although AAA failed to describe every detail of the incidents, she nevertheless testified in plain, direct, and categorical manner that the appellant, through force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of her twice on July 26, 2003. We have also declared that the inconsistencies in a victim's testimony do not weaken her credibility. We cannot expect a rape victim, especially a minor in this case, to remember every ugly detail of her painful experience. 14
It is also well-settled that the findings of fact and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying. 15 The CA affirmed the RTC's factual findings and assessment on the credibility and truthfulness of AAA's testimony. We see no reason that would justify the reversal of the trial and appellate courts' findings.
In another attempt to exculpate himself, the appellant contended that the conduct of AAA's parents in leaving her with him at the abandoned house was contrary to human experience and behavior. However, this contention cannot support the appellant's acquittal for it does not negate the commission of the crime of rape.
Notably, AAA's testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Santiago. The medical findings revealed that the occurrence of the injuries on AAA's private part coincides with the date the rape incidents occurred. It is settled that sufficient basis exists to conclude that sexual intercourse took place where a victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration. 16
As the lower courts did, we also reject the appellant's defense of denial and alibi. The appellant failed to present strong evidence to support his lack of guilt. Having established AAA's credibility, the appellant's defense cannot prevail over AAA's positive testimony. Moreover, the appellant did not attribute any ill motive on the part of AAA or her parents to file the cases against him. Hence, AAA's testimony that the appellant sexually abused her is credible absent evidence of ill motive to incriminate and testify against him. 17
The Penalty
The CA correctly affirmed the penalty imposed by the RTC upon the appellant. We therefore sustain the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 266-B, in relation to Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC.
The Proper Indemnities
We increase the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 for each case, to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. 18 In addition, we award exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 in favor of AAA, for each count of rape. The attendance of AAA's minority as an aggravating circumstance justifies the grant of exemplary damages in order to set a public example and to establish a deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth. 19 We delete the award of actual damages for lack of legal basis.
Finally, we impose interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all the monetary awards for damages, to be reckoned from the date of finality of this Resolution until their full satisfaction. DETACa
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 2012, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00735-MIN. with the following MODIFICATIONS:
a) the respective awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, for each count of rape;
b) the appellant is ordered to pay AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of rape;
c) the awards of actual damages are deleted; and
d) the awards of damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, computed from the date of the finality of this Resolution 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
* Del Castillo, J., on leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Maria Luisa Quijano-Padilla.
2. Records, pp. 74-88; penned by Presiding Judge Pelagio B. Estopia.
3. Id. at 81.
4. Id. at 83.
5. Id. at 86.
6. Id. at 88.
7. See Brief for Accused-Appellant: CA rollo, pp. 11-28.
8. Rollo, p. 10.
9. Id. at 8.
10. Id. at 11.
11. Id. at 13.
12. TSN, May 30, 2006, pp. 14-18.
13. Id. at 16-18.
14. See People v. Saludo, 662 Phil. 738 (2011).
15. People v. Traigo, G.R. No. 199096, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 389, 393, citing People v. Lasola, 376 Phil. 349, 358 (1999).
16. People v. Corpuz, 517 Phil. 622, 637 (2006).
17. People v. Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014, 717 SCRA 209, 231.
18. People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 207630, April 5, 2016.
19. People v. Japson, G.R. No. 210658, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 627, 638.