People v. Mendoza

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 198054. December 11, 2013.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.GERALD MENDOZA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 11, 2013 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 198054 (People of the Philippines v. Gerald Mendoza).— We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Gerald Mendoza (appellant),from the 29 April 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00700-MIN. 1

The RTC Ruling

In its 6 March 2009 Decision, 2 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 4, convicted appellant of rape committed against the alleged victim, AAA, 3 on 11 October 2003.

In her testimony, AAA recounted that at three in the morning she boarded the motorized trisikad driven by Dionisio Martinito (Dionisio).Appellant was already seated at the back when AAA stepped inside the trisikad. Dionisio, who was originally appellant's co-accused, had already been convicted by the RTC when he pleaded guilty to the downgraded charge of acts of lasciviousness. 4 While on board the trisikad, appellant reached over and covered the mouth of AAA with his one hand and pointed an ice pick at the side of her neck with the other. He warned her not to shout and told her that it was a hold-up. Thereafter, Dionisio and the appellant took AAA to a building under construction. Appellant then placed one arm around her shoulder while still pointing an ice pick at her neck. He took her inside the unfinished building and warned her not to shout or he would kill her. AAA told appellant that she was willing to give him her money but he did not listen. 5 Instead, with the ice pick still pointed at her neck, he instructed her to remove her pants. 6 He raped her by inserting his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, Dionisio inserted his finger into her vagina while he masturbated. 7

Police Inspector Lacano, Jr. (Lacano) testified that on 11 October 2003, around 4:30 a.m.,he received a phone call from Fatima Moscano, who informed him of what happened to her friend, AAA. 8 Lacano arrested appellant and Dionisio and found AAA's cellular phone in Dionisio's possession. 9CIcTAE

The defense of appellant consisted of his testimony. Although he admitted being with AAA at the time and place of the alleged crime, he testified that he never raped her. 10 According to him, he only kissed her, and she never resisted. 11 The defense also presented Dionisio's testimony, which corroborated appellant's own. 12

The RTC ruled that the prosecution's version of the facts was more logical and believable than that of appellant's. 13 It found, however, that although appellant was originally charged with the complex crime of robbery with rape, 14 the prosecution was only able to prove the crime of rape, as the evidence the latter presented "falls short to convince that certain amount and personal belongings were indeed forcibly taken during the incident." 15 Thus, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, for which it sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay AAA the amount of P50,000 as moral damages. 16

The CA Ruling

The CA declared that the judge's assessment of the credibility of the rape victim was "not only accurate but duly supported by evidence." 17 It also debunked appellant's position that the conclusion of the RTC with respect to the credibility of the witness was unreliable, because the judge who penned the Decision was different from the one who personally heard the case. The appellate court reminded appellant that a judge who did not actually hear the testimonies of the witnesses could rely on the transcripts of the stenographic notes taken during the trial without violating substantive and procedural due process. 18

The CA reiterated that a trial court's findings of fact are ordinarily given great respect by the reviewing court and that, in consequence, it would only disregard these findings when there is a manifest indication that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have altered the conviction of the accused. 19 The CA ruled that there was no reason, in this case, to set aside the RTC's findings of fact. 20

Lastly, the appellate court held that "while denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases, bare denials cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim." 21

The CA affirmed the penalties imposed by the RTC.

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling

We deny the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.

After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of AAA's testimony, particularly in the present case in which the findings were affirmed by the CA. EAcHCI

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, 22 whenever rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. The mere presence of the aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon does not automatically entail or justify the imposition of the death penalty. 23 The Court must apply the second paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case at bar, no other aggravating or mitigating circumstance has been proved. Accordingly, the imposable penalty is the lesser one, which is reclusion perpetua.

While we affirm the CA's factual findings and imposition of the penalty of imprisonment, we find it necessary to increase the amounts awarded to AAA, in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.

Civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages are mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape. Taking into account the fact that the rape was attended with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court finds that an award of P30,000 as exemplary damages is justified. 24

WHEREFORE,the 29 April 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00700-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.Appellant Gerald Mendoza is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay AAA P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P30,000 as exemplary damages, and all monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.;CA rollo, pp. 82-92.

2. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 10263; Id. at 29-48.

3. The real name of the rape victim is withheld and fictitious initials are used to represent her in consonance with Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 and People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).

4. CA rollo, pp. 29-30.

5. Id. at 31.

6. Id.

7. Id.

8. Id. at 32.

9. Id. at 33.

10. Id. at 33-34.

11. Id.

12. Id. at 33.

13. Id. at 47.

14. ARTICLE 294. Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons — Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

xxx xxx xxx

2. The penalty of reclusión temporal in its medium period to reclusión perpetua, when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of article 263 shall have been inflicted, or the person robbed shall have been held for ransom or deprived of his liberty for more than one day.

15. Id. at 48.

16. Id.

17. Rollo, p. 9.

18. Id. at 10.

19. Id.

20. Id.

21. Id. at 12-13.

22. As Amended by R.A. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which took effect on 22 October 1997.

23. People v. Dayna, 421 Phil. 123, 132 (2001).

24. People v. Celocelo, G.R. No. 173798, 15 December 2010, 638 SCRA 576.