THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201099. September 29, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME MENDOZA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201099 (People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Mendoza). — Before us is an appeal from the August 31, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, of Calabanga, Camarines Sur finding appellant guilty of statutory rape under Article 266-A 3 in relation to Article 266-B 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353. 5
The prosecution evidence proved the following facts: On October 8, 2008, the victim, then 5-year-old AAA, 6 rode a pedicab driven by the appellant Mendoza on her way home from school. Instead of bringing AAA home, Mendoza brought AAA to a grassy portion along the road and told her to alight from the pedicab. Mendoza pulled down the seat of the pedicab and told AAA to lie down on it. Mendoza then removed AAA's shoes, socks and underwear and attempted to insert his erect penis inside her vagina. AAA felt his penis touch her vagina four times and felt pain in her vagina. When people arrived near the place, Mendoza decided to bring AAA home. 7 Two persons, who saw Mendoza deviating from the usual path going to AAA's house and who had followed him, saw him kneeling in front of AAA at the grassy area. They were too afraid to stop appellant so they rushed instead to tell the incident to BBB, the mother of AAA. 8 As soon as Mendoza and AAA arrived home, BBB asked her daughter about the incident. AAA then told BBB what Mendoza did to her. BBB confronted Mendoza about it, but the latter denied the accusation. BBB then brought AAA to the police station where she was examined and where she filed a Complaint 9 for Rape against Mendoza. 10
In the face of the prosecution evidence, Mendoza raised the defense of denial. He claimed that on October 8, 2008, he was bringing AAA home but he decided to park his pedicab first to bring home a fish. He asked AAA to wait. When he returned to his pedicab, he found Raffy Terelejos and the latter's mother seated in his pedicab. He asked them what they were doing there, but they just left. AAA then rode his pedicab and brought AAA home. Upon reaching their house, he noticed a commotion but he just went home. 11
The RTC convicted Mendoza of the crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 8353. The trial court sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death pursuant to R.A. No. 9346 and to pay AAA P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and costs. The RTC also credited Mendoza with the time he spent in preventive imprisonment during the pendency of the case. 12
The trial court found AAA's testimony clear, straightforward and credible. The trial court held that it was unnatural for a 6-year-old child to concoct a sordid story of how Mendoza tried to insert his penis into her vagina for several times and how it touched her vagina but did not penetrate the same. The trial court held that Mendoza's denial, which constitutes self- serving negative evidence, cannot overcome AAA's positive identification of Mendoza. 13THEcAS
The CA denied appellant's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision. 14 Like the trial court, the CA found the testimony of AAA candid, straightforward, convincing and credible. The appellate court noted that AAA positively identified Mendoza as the person who ravaged her and clearly narrated the incident. Her testimony was also corroborated by a witness who followed her to the place where she was molested. The appellate court considered the age of AAA at the time of the incident and held that courts are inclined to give credence to testimonies of young girls considering the shame and vulnerability to which they would be exposed if the story were not true. The appellate court ruled that AAA would not concoct such a story, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the trouble and trauma/scandal of a public trial had she not been raped and motivated by the desire to obtain justice. The appellate court also held that there was no evidence to show ill motive on the part of AAA in accusing Mendoza. 15
Mendoza filed the present appeal contending that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court affirms appellant's conviction. We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to reverse appellant's conviction. There is no showing that either the RTC or the CA committed error in law and in its findings of fact 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. 16 The Court notes that other than his claim of denial, Mendoza failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. The absence of any reddening or tearing of the external genitalia or laceration of the hymen would not preclude a finding of rape contrary to his contentions since the crime is already consummated by the slightest penetration of the labia or pudendum of the female. 17 Such penetration was adequately established in this case by the positive, straightforward, and credible testimony of AAA.
However, in applying R.A. No. 9346 and reducing the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua, the trial court and the CA overlooked and failed to indicate that the reduction of the penalty to reclusion perpetua is without eligibility for parole in accordance with Sections 2 18 and 3 19 of R.A. No. 9346. Likewise, as regards the damages awarded by the RTC and the CA, the Court finds the same to be deficient. Following recent jurisprudence, the Court orders the appellant Mendoza to pay the victim civil indemnity of P75,000, exemplary damages of P30,000, and moral damages of P75,000 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof. 20 Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded in this case is likewise proper.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 31, 2011. Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04514 affirming the conviction of appellant Jaime Mendoza for statutory rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Appellant is also ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity of P75,000, moral damages of P75,000 and exemplary damages of P30,000. 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; Bersamin, J., designated Member per Raffle dated September 17, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04514.
2. CA rollo, pp. 12-19. Penned by Judge Freddie D. Balonzo. The RTC decision was rendered in Criminal Case No. RTC'08-1354 on May 25, 2010.
3. Art. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. (Republic Act No. 8353 which took effect on October 22, 1997).
4. Art. 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
xxx xxx xxx
5. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
6. 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).
7. Rollo, pp. 4-5; TSN, February 3, 2009, pp. 4-12.
8. Id. at 6; TSN, February 17, 2009, pp. 2-6.
9. Records, p. 3.
10. Rollo, p. 5; TSN, February 24, 2009, pp. 3-7.
11. Id. at 7; TSN, July 7, 2009, pp. 2-9.
12. CA rollo, p. 19.
13. Id. at 18.
14. Rollo, p. 15.
15. Id. at 11-12.
16. People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
17. See People v. Degay, G.R. No. 182526, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 409, 420-421 and People v. De Taza, 457 Phil. 634, 664 (2003).
18. SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
19. SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
20. People v. Achas, 612 Phil. 652, 667 (2009); People v. Anguac, 606 Phil. 728 (2009); People v. Glivano, 566 Phil. 644, 653-654 (2008); People v. Gloria, 534 Phil. 879, 893-894 (2006); People v. Audine, 539 Phil. 583, 608 (2006); People v. Cayabyab, 503 Phil. 606, 620-621 (2005); People v. Alfaro, 458 Phil. 942, 963 (2003).