SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226149. October 10, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ENRIQUE MENDOZA y ARCAYOS @ "RICKY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 October 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226149 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versusENRIQUE MENDOZA y ARCAYOS @ "RICKY", accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the Decision 1 dated July 7, 2015, of the Court of Appeals, Special Fifteenth Division (CA), in CA-G.R. CR. H.C. No. 06396. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant is indeed guilty of the crime of Rape. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, there being no supplemental briefs filed, were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 2 Thus, when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the victim, the findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. 3 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the RTC's 4 appreciation of the evidence, which was affirmed in toto by the CA.
In the same vein, accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot outweigh the candid and straightforward testimony of private complainant AAA 5 (AAA) that he indeed had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Further, and contrary to accused-appellant's contention, AAA was not expected to remember in specific detail when the horrible act was done against her. To stress, rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. 6 Discrepancies regarding the actual date or time of the commission of the rape cannot be considered as grounds for acquittal, since such date of commission is not an element of the crime. It is only important that the commission of rape by the accused has been sufficiently proven. 7 As correctly held by the CA, it was a minor detail that was immaterial insofar as the elements of the crime is concerned. CAIHTE
In addition, accused-appellant's claim that the failure of AAA to seek help or report the crime immediately should be taken against her fails to convince. It is important to stress that not all rape victims react the same way. 8 Not every victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectation of mankind. 9 Verily, there is no typical reaction or norm of behavior that ensue forthwith or later from victims of rape. 10 It should be true, most certainly, when dealing with an innocent and immature child still of tender age, 11 or one that is mentally deranged, as in this case.
Lastly, accused-appellant offers alibi and denial to prove that he did not rape AAA. Accused-appellant maintains that he did not do the crime as he was in another barangay at the time of the incident.
With regard to this issue, the Court has oft pronounced that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on the one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 12 Further, the continuing case law is that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. 13
In the present case, accused-appellant never presented any other evidence apart from his own testimony to prove that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Further, accused-appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be there at the time. 14 As pointed out by the RTC in its Decision, 15 Barangay Guinobatan, the place where the accused-appellant claimed to be at the time of the incident, was just a few minutes away from Barangay Lalud, the place where the rape occurred. 16 His defenses of denial and alibi must thus fail.
However, the Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, as modified by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 17 the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages should be increased to P75,000.00 each. The legal interest is also modified to six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. 18
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated July 7, 2015 of the Court of Appeals, Special Fifteenth Division, in CA-G.R. CR. H.C. No. 06396. The Decision finding accused-appellant Enrique Mendoza y Arcayos @ "Ricky" guilty beyond reasonable of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is ordered to pay the private complainant SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on wellness leave) DETACa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
4. Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 39, in Crim. Case No. CR-08-9252.
5. 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 initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
6.People v. Saludo, 662 Phil. 738, 753 (2011).
7.People v. Matugas, 427 Phil. 696, 718-719 (2002).
8.People v. Soriano, 560 Phil. 415, 420 (2007).
9.People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, 315 (1996).
10.People v. Deleverio, 352 Phil. 382, 400 (1998).
11.Id. at 400.
12.People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527 (2013).
13.People v. Desalisa, 451 Phil. 869, 876 (2003).
14.Rollo, p. 10.
15. CA rollo, pp. 26-33, Dated August 6, 2013 and penned by Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr.
16.Id. at 32.
17.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
18.Id. at 854.