FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 209229. March 26, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MICHAEL LAYGO Y MALASARTE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 26, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 209229 (People of the Philippines vs. Michael Laygo y Malasarte). — Accused-appellant Michael Laygo y Malasarte (Laygo) challenges in this appeal the Decision 1 dated April 22, 2013 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03947, which affirmed the Judgment 2 of conviction for three (3) counts of Rape rendered against him on February 24, 2009 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 260, in Criminal Case Nos. 06-0286, 3 06-0287 4 and 06-0314. 5
AAA, 6 the complainant, testified that she was raped three times by Laygo inside her bedroom located at the second floor of their house on the following dates: February 28, 2006, March 2, 2006 and March 3, 2006. 7
On the first incident, AAA narrated that at around 10:00 p.m. on February 28, 2006, while she was sleeping alone inside her room, Laygo suddenly came in, covered her mouth and told her to be quiet. He undressed her then removed his own clothes. He mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina while she was lying down. 8 She tried to push him but to no avail as he was stronger than her. He then made push and pull movements which lasted for about 30 minutes. 9 She felt pain inside her vagina but did not offer any resistance because she was afraid of Laygo since he was known to have been in and out of jail. 10
The second rape happened on March 2, 2006 at around 10:30 p.m. AAA recounted that after having dinner with her family, she proceeded to her room, while her other family members went to their store. When she entered her room, she was shocked to found Laygo inside. She tried to escape but Laygo pulled her back, laid her down, and at the same time warned her not to tell anyone about what is happening, otherwise, he would kill her mother. 11 He then immediately took off his clothes, placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis in her vagina. She could not shout because his hand was covering her mouth. The sexual intercourse took about four minutes and all she could do was cry. 12 Again, because of fear, she kept the incident to herself.
For the third time, on March 3, 2006 at about 2:00 a.m., Laygo entered AAA's room while she was sleeping alone. 13 Again, he undressed her and inserted his penis inside her vagina. However, it took only several seconds because he retreated when AAA's mother woke up to go to the comfort room. 14 He immediately escaped by passing on the roof. AAA then cried and told her mother about the incident. 15 AAA's mother corroborated her testimony and said that she was awakened when she heard footsteps on their roof. When she went out, she saw Laygo coming out from AAA's room. She then rushed to AAA's room where she saw AAA naked from waist down. Thereafter, AAA confessed that she was raped three times by Laygo. She immediately reported the matter to the authorities and had AAA examined. 16 aEcHCD
Laygo, testifying in his own behalf, denied the charges against him and involved the defense of alibi alleging that on February 28, 2006, he was at the Bulungan, La Huerta, Parañaque City with his friends. They proceeded to his house at around 5:00 p.m. where his friends practiced a dance. His friends left his place at about 9:00 p.m. Thereafter, he went to sleep ahead of his two siblings and woke up the following day at around 7:00 a.m. He said that he does not remember meeting AAA on February 28, 2006, nor went to the latter's house. 17
The RTC rendered Judgment on February 24, 2009, finding Laygo guilty for the three (3) counts of rape of which he was charged and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the three counts of rape. The RTC also ordered him to pay AAA moral damages of P150,000.00 and civil indemnities of P150,000.00, for all the three (3) counts of rape.
On appeal, CA rendered a Decision dated April 22, 2013, affirming the RTC decision in its entirety. Laygo then appealed to this Court for review. 18
The appeal lacks merit.
The primordial question in rape cases is the credibility of the complainant's testimony since she alone can testify as to its occurrence. The sole testimony of AAA, recounting the facts and circumstances of her ordeal was sufficiently straightforward, candid, and worthy of belief, as against Laygo's self-serving assertion of denial and alibi. As borne out of the records of this case, AAA never wavered in her allegations of rape against Laygo. She positively identified Laygo in open court as the very person who inserted his penis into her vagina. Her candid narration of the devious act done upon her by Laygo has the earmark of truth and sincerity. Furthermore, this Court is convinced that AAA has no ill-motive to manufacture such a tale if it were not true. The Court had repeatedly held that no young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless it is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor; and that no young girl would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the expense, trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, unless she was, in fact, raped. 19
Moreso, the elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape were positively established by the prosecution. First, the appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim. AAA was steadfast in her assertion that Laygo inserted his penis into her vagina, and her testimony was strongly corroborated by the medico-legal findings showing that she had deep fresh lacerations on her hymen at six o'clock position, which is a clear indication that there was a forced penetration or trauma in her hymen. 20
Second, the appellant employed threat, force and intimidation to satisfy his lust. In this case, AAA testified that she merely cried when Laygo inserted his penis into her vagina. As a minor, AAA could not reasonably be expected to resist in the same manner that an adult would under the same or similar circumstances. Nonetheless, AAA's act of crying during the rape is sufficient indication that Laygo's act was against her will. AAA also revealed that Laygo threatened to kill her mother if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
In the light of the positive identification by AAA, Laygo's proffered defense of denial and alibi must fail. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in another place when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. 21 Here, Laygo merely claimed that he was in his house and he does not remember meeting AAA on February 28, 2006, nor went to the latter's house. Even assuming that he was just inside their house the whole day, it was not physically impossible for him to commit the crime because his house is merely within walking distance from AAA's house. Besides, none of his friends or his siblings corroborated his alibi. CSIHDA
Since the CA and the RTC unanimously found the testimony of AAA credible and reliable, it consequently behooved Laygo to come forward with a good reason or cause to have us depart from the age-old rule of according conclusiveness to the findings of the RTC that the CA affirmed. But that convincing demonstration was not done here by Laygo. Thus, his guilt was sufficiently proven by the prosecution.
With regard to damages, we note that both the RTC and the CA failed to award exemplary damages. The attendance of AAA's minority as an aggravating circumstance should still justify 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. The Court have already ruled that exemplary damages are justified regardless of whether or not the generic or qualifying aggravating circumstances are alleged in the information, considering that the grant of such damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code is intended for the sole benefit of the victim and does not affect the criminal liability, the exclusive concern of the State. The grant in this regard should be in the sum of P30,000.00. 22
In addition, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) perannum is imposed on all damages awarded from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. 23
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated April 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 03947 which found accused-appellant Michael Laygo y Malasarte GUILTY in Criminal Case Nos. 06-0286, 06-0287 and 06-0314 for three (3) counts of Rape, is AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATIONS that AAA is further awarded the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each rape and interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 131-139.
2. Issued by Judge Jaime M. Guray; id. at 34-41.
3. Id. at 16.
4. Id. at 17.
5. Id. at 18.
6. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and any other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall, instead be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.
7. TSN, January 25, 2007.
8. Id. at 5-7.
9. Id. at 12-13.
10. Id. at 10-11.
11. Id. at 14-19.
12. Id. at 21-24.
13. Id. at 25-26.
14. Id. at 27.
15. Id. at 29-30.
16. TSN, February 21, 2008, pp. 4-11.
17. TSN, June 10, 2008, pp. 5-15.
18. Rollo, pp. 11-12.
19. People of the Philippines v. Carlito Espenilla, G.R. No. 192253, September 18, 2013.
20. TSN, September 11, 2007, pp. 15, 19.
21. People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 749, 760.
22. People of the Philippines v. Victorino Reyes, G.R. No. 173307, July 17, 2013.
23. People v. Cabungan, G.R. No. 189355, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 236.