THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229511. August 9, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. NOLI LOPEZ y RENATO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 9, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229511 (People of the Philippines vs. Noli Lopez y Renato). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the letter dated May 14, 2017 of P/Supt I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since January 23, 2014;
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated May 11, 2017 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief and adopts its Appellee's Brief of January 30, 2015, there being no events occurrences or conditions which happened after the appellate court's decision was rendered; and
(3) accused-appellant's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated June 2, 2017 stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief and adopts the brief for the accused-appellant as his supplemental brief.
This is an appeal seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 1 dated July 22, 2016 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06677, affirming the January 6, 2014 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 199, in Criminal Cases No. 11-0115 and No. 11-0116, finding accused-appellant Noli Lopez y Renato (Lopez) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape. HTcADC
Lopez was charged with rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 and 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 in three (3) separate criminal Informations, to wit:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0114
That on or about February 13, 2008, [in] Las Piñas City and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused [Lopez], actuated by lascivious conduct and by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, he being the common[-]law spouse of the mother of the victim "AAA" 3 did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have committed sexual assault and abuse on the same "AAA", a minor child of five (5) years of age, by inserting his penis unto her mouth, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0115
That on or about the month of February 2008, in Las Piñas City, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused [Lopez], actuated by lust and by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, he being the common-law spouse of the mother of the victim "AAA", did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge with same "AAA", a minor child of five (5) years of age, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0116
That on or about the last week of February 2008, in Las Piñas City, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, accused, [Lopez] by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, he being the common-law spouse of the mother of the victim "AAA", did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have committed sexual assault and abuse on same "AAA", a minor child of five (5) years of age, by inserting his finger unto her genital and anal orifice, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a Decision 5 finding Lopez guilty of the crimes charged, except as to Criminal Case No. 11-0114, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0114, for insufficiency of evidence accused [Lopez] is hereby ACQUITTED for RAPE in relation to R.A. No. 7610. There is no finding of civil liability.
2. In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0115, the court finds [Lopez] GUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt for RAPE under Article 266 A par. 1 in relation to R.A. [No.] 7610 and hereby sentence[s] the accused [Lopez] to a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with the accessory penalty provided for by law.
Accused is likewise directed to indemnify the victim AAA the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS ([P]50,000.00) as moral damages.
3. In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0116, the court finds the accused GUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt for RAPE under Art. 266 A in relation to R.A. [No.] 7610 and hereby sentence[s] [Lopez] to an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of PRISION MAYOR as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of RECLUSION TEMPORAL as its maximum with the accessory penalty provided for by law.
[Lopez] is likewise directed to indemnify the victim AAA the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages.
Let a copy of the Decision be furnished the Prosecution, the accused as well as his counsel.
SO ORDERED. 6
On appeal, the CA found AAA's testimonies to be credible considering that her claim of rape was corroborated by the physical examination conducted on her person by Dr. Merle Tan, revealing that notwithstanding the absence of an evident injury on her hymen, she was, however, afflicted with gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease which could only be acquired through sexual contact. 7
The CA also took note of the fact that Lopez is the common-law spouse of BBB, AAA's mother, and even observed that if there was, indeed, no longer a relationship existing between Lopez and BBB, as the former vehemently insists, there would be no need for CCC (AAA's Aunt) to fabricate an accusation in order to separate Lopez and BBB. 8
The CA disposed, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The appealed Decision dated 6 January 2014 rendered by Branch 199 of the Las Piñas City [RTC], Branch 199 of [sic] in Criminal Case[s] No. 11-0115 and [No.] 11-0116 is AFFIRMED. aScITE
SO ORDERED. 9
In this appeal, Lopez remains hard in his stance that he did not commit the crimes charged. He faults the court a quo for finding him guilty of the crime of rape despite the insufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution. According to him, it was "impossible for him to abuse the child because during the month of February of2008, he was always out making deliveries from morning until afternoon" 10 and that he reports for work from 6:00 a.m. and will only return at the office at around 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 11 Lopez also denies being the common-law spouse of AAA's mother as he insists that his relationship with the latter had already ceased when she left to work abroad. He also reiterates that AAA's allegations were only concocted by CCC, because she wanted her brother (the biological father of AAA) to reconcile with AAA's mother. 12
Ruling of the Court
The Court is not persuaded.
We see no reason to deviate from the trial and appellate courts' findings of fact and guilt of Lopez. It is a settled rule that when a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the victim's testimony is sufficient to support a conviction. 13 Likewise, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the disposition of the case, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. 14
The foregoing notwithstanding, however, the Court modifies the crime committed, the penalty imposed and the indemnities awarded by the lower courts.
For one, AAA's minority and tender age, as she was only 5 years old when the crime was committed against her, was clearly established.
Two, such gravity was even more qualified by Lopez's relationship with AAA, with him being the common-law spouse of AAA's mother.
Further, even assuming that Lopez and BBB were no longer in a relationship, the fact still remains that the effects and consequences of this common-law relationship as far as AAA was concerned, still exist as evidenced by the fact that AAA still repeatedly referred to Lopez as her "Papa Noli." 15
Clearly, both the crimes of penile rape and that of rape by sexual assault committed by Lopez against AAA were qualified by the special qualifying circumstances of minority and the relationship between the offender and the offended party because Lopez was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother.
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. However, in view of R.A. No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines," the Court cannot impose the death penalty. Hence, in lieu of the death penalty, We impose on Lopez the penalty of reclusionperpetua without eligibility for parole.
It should also be stressed that under the same article of the RPC, qualified rape by sexual intercourse and qualified rape by sexual assault are punished differently. While qualified rape by sexual intercourse is punishable by death which, as discussed above, was, however, reduced to reclusionperpetua without eligibility for parole, qualified rape by sexual assault with any of the ten (10) aggravating circumstances listed in paragraph 6 of Article 266-B, on the other hand, is punishable by reclusiontemporal.
Thus, considering the aggravating circumstances present in the case at bar, Lopez's penalty for qualified rape by sexual assault, therefore, should be modified to an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years of prisionmayor, as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusiontemporal, as maximum.
As held in the case of People of the Philippines v. Edilberto Pusing y Tamor, 16 between the penalty for rape of a minor under the RPC and that under R.A. No. 7610, the higher penalty must be applied for the benefit of the minor victim. HEITAD
However, just like in the case of Pusing, 17 where rape is already qualified because of the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship, the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period is already allowed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06677 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. In Criminal Case No. 11-0115, the Court finds accused-appellant Noli Lopez y Renato guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIEDRAPE under Article 266-A, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetuawithouteligibilityforparole, in accordance with R.A. No. 9346; and directs him to pay AAA P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, in conformity with the recent case of People v. Jugueta. 18
2. In Criminal Case No. 11-0116, the Court finds accused-appellant Noli Lopez y Renato guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIEDRAPEBYSEXUALASSAULT for which he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prisionmayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusiontemporal, as maximum.
Accused-appellant Noli Lopez y Renato is likewise directed to pay the victim, AAA, P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The amounts awarded to the victim in Criminal Cases No. 11015 and No. 11016 shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) perannum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino concurring; rollo, pp. 2-14.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Joselito Dj. Vibandor; CA rollo, pp. 41-61.
3. 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 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.
4. CA rollo, pp. 41-42.
5.Id. at 41-61.
6.Id. at 61.
7.Rollo, p. 9.
8.Id. at 14.
9.Id.
10.See Appellant's brief; CA rollo, p. 30.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.People v. Sumingwa, 618 Phil. 650, 665 (2009).
14.People v. Nelmida, et al., 694 Phil. 529, 556 (2012).
15.Rollo, p. 14.
16. G.R. No. 208009, July 11, 2016.
17.Supra.
18. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 382-383.