People v. Lopez y Gavia

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 203025. September 17, 2014.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME LOPEZ y GAVIA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 17, 2014, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 203025 (People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Lopez y Gavia). — On appeal is the Decision 1 dated May 20, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, of Calauag, Quezon convicting appellant Jaime Lopez of four counts of qualified rape of his 14-year-old daughter AAA. 3

Briefly, the prosecution evidence proved the following facts. AAA is the biological daughter of appellant. She was only 14 years old 4 at the time appellant raped her. Sometime in May 2002, AAA was sleeping inside their house in XXX, Lopez, Quezon, but was awakened when appellant began touching her private parts. Appellant threatened her not to make noise otherwise something bad would happen to her. Appellant then went on top of her and removed her underwear. Appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain and felt so afraid and so weak that even though she wanted to struggle, all she could do was cry. After satisfying his lust, appellant threatened AAA again not to tell anyone or something bad will happen to her, her siblings, and her mother. After that, appellant went back to his place and slept. 5

Sometime in June 2002, appellant again raped AAA while AAA's mother was at her grandmother's house. At around 9:00 p.m., while AAA and her siblings were asleep, appellant again began touching AAA's private parts. He took off her panty, placed himself on top of AAA and once again inserted his penis into her vagina. After satisfying his lust, appellant warned AAA not to tell anyone about what happened. Appellant did the same thing two more times in the same month. AAA did not tell anyone about the rapes because she was afraid appellant would hurt or kill her. So she decided instead to work in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. For two months, she worked as a babysitter until her landlady noticed her bulging abdomen and told her mother BBB about it. It was then that she disclosed to her mother BBB that it was appellant who was responsible for her pregnancy. BBB and AAA's uncle then brought AAA to the police station and examinations were done on her. 6 Dr. Linda Tapales, a physician employed in Magsaysay Memorial Hospital, testified that she examined AAA on December 14, 2002. Her examinations revealed that AAA's hymen had old lacerations 7 and that she was already seven to eight months pregnant at the time she examined her. 8

In the face of the prosecution evidence, appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that in May and June 2002 he was making copra in the mornings in Barangay Magallanes which was about an hour's walk away from his residence. He added that he could not remember the dates he worked at said barangay. He also claimed that his in-laws want him jailed to eject him from the land where his family stayed. 9

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of qualified rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count without eligibility for parole. The trial court likewise ordered appellant to pay AAA in each count P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. 10 The trial court ruled that the defense of denial and alibi without strong evidence to support it does not overcome the positive declarations of AAA. The trial court added that appellant's moral ascendancy over AAA explains the absence of violence and intimidation and does not affect the outcome of the case. The fact that the rape was committed in the family residence where AAA's siblings were also sleeping also does not cast doubt on AAA's testimony as rape is no respecter of time and place. Lastly, the trial court emphasized that a victim of tender years would not impute a serious crime such as rape if it were not true. 11SHIETa

On appeal, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction for four counts of qualified rape, but modified the amount of damages. The CA reduced the amount of moral damages from P75,000 to P50,000. 12 The appellate court agreed with the trial court that AAA's clear, direct and categorical testimony was entitled to full faith and credence and prevails over appellant's alibi. The CA held that appellant's alibi was weak as it was not physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime since the barangay where he worked was only about an hour's walk away from their residence. Likewise, the appellate court ruled that the allegation that the crime was merely imputed on him by his wife's relatives to evict him from their land is specious. The CA emphasized that a daughter would not concoct a story of rape, expose herself to the ordeal and embarrassment of a public trial, and subject her private parts to examination just to evict her father. The CA emphasized that a daughter would not accuse her father of rape had she really not been aggrieved. 13

Undaunted, appellant filed the present appeal insisting that AAA's testimony was patently incredible as she could not remember the exact dates when the rapes happened and because the alleged rapes could not have gone unnoticed by AAA's siblings who were just nearby when the alleged rapes happened. He adds that full credence should also not be given to AAA's testimony because there is an existing grudge between appellant and their family, and the relatives of AAA were induced by evil motives in filing charges against him.

After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court affirms with modification 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 appellate court. There is no showing that either the RTC or the CA committed any error in its conclusions and 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 had the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not. Absent any showing in this case that the lower courts overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated 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. 14 The Court notes that other than his claim of denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. Further, appellant failed to prove that AAA was impelled by any ill motive to testify falsely against him. The fact that AAA could not recall the exact dates appellant raped her is also of no moment as exact date of commission is not an essential element of rape. The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent. 15 Neither does the fact that the rapes were committed near AAA's siblings detract from her credibility. As we have repeatedly held, rape is no respecter of time and place and can be committed even in the unlikeliest of places. 16

Regarding the amount of damages, the Court affirms the award to AAA of P75,000 as civil indemnity for each count of rape, but increases the award of moral damages to P75,000 and the amount of exemplary damages to P30,000 for each count in line with current jurisprudence. 17 The Court further deems it proper to impose interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from finality of this Resolution until fully paid, consistent with current policy.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated May 20, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04299 affirming the conviction of appellant Jaime Lopez y Gavia for four counts of qualified rape is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The amounts of moral damages and exemplary damages awarded to the victim in each count are increased to P75,000 and P30,000, respectively. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid shall likewise be paid by the appellant.

With costs against the appellant. (Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General;Perez, J., designated Member per Raffle dated September 3, 2014.)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Antonio L. Villamor concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04299.

2. CA rollo, pp. 46-56. Penned by Presiding Judge Manuel G. Salumbides. The decision was promulgated on January 7, 2010 in Criminal Case Nos. 4266-C to 4269-C; records (Crim. Case No. 4266-C), p. 243.

3. The victim's real name and personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity as well as those of her immediate family are withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006).

4. Records (Crim. Case No. 4266-C), p. 13; CA rollo, p. 55.

5. Rollo, pp. 4-5; TSN, March 29, 2005, pp. 4-7; TSN, August 18, 2005, pp. 4-7.

6. Id. at 5; TSN, August 18, 2005, pp. 7-15, 23-26.

7. Records (Crim. Case No. 4266-C), p. 12.

8. Rollo, p. 5; TSN, March 9, 2006, pp. 3-6.

9. Id.; TSN, July 14, 2009, pp. 5-11.

10. CA rollo, p. 56.

11. Id. at 54-55.

12. Rollo, p. 11.

13. Id. at 8-9.

14. People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.

15. People v. Bidoc, 536 Phil. 1178, 1198 (2006).

16. People v. Perez, 377 Phil. 656, 668 (1999).

17. People v. Candellada, G.R. No. 189293, July 10, 2013, 701 SCRA 19, 33-34.