FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198307. April 23, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO MIRANDA y AGUIRRE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198307 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO MIRANDA y AGUIRRE, Accused-Appellant.
This is an appeal from the March 11, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03572, affirming with modification the May 22, 2008 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila City, Branch 48, finding accused-appellant Ricardo Miranda y Aguirre (Miranda) guilty of rape of AAA, 3 a minor less than 12 years old.
Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision dated May 22, 2008, the RTC sentenced Miranda to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA P50,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of the suit.
The RTC found that the evidence presented by the prosecution established Miranda's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC believed the testimony of AAA not only because she was consistent and straightforward in her narration of the events that happened to her, but also because the other pieces of evidence, including the medical findings, supported her claim that she was indeed raped by Miranda on May 20, 2003 by strangling her with a handkerchief, punching her on her side, holding her hair, undressing her, fondling her private parts, and thereafter inserting his penis into her vagina.
On the other hand, the RTC gave no merit to Miranda's argument that the scene of the crime was a populated place, ergo negating the possibility of the commission of an offense without anyone noticing, and his allegations that he considered AAA his daughter but admitting that when she had a fight with his group, he failed to defend her. The RTC held that Miranda's sweeping defense of denial failed to overcome the clear and straightforward evidence of the prosecution against him.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC and gave more weight to the prosecution's evidence. The CA found no merit in Miranda's arguments and ratiocinated that:
Lust is no respecter of time or place. There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion. Thus, it has been held that rape can be committed even in places . . . which, to many, would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act. 4THaCAI
The CA also held that the inconsistencies in AAA's statements, which Miranda pointed out, referred to minor and collateral matters that had no bearing on the act complained of. Moreover, the CA said, victims in rape cases are not expected to have a total recall of the incident, thus minor inconsistencies bolster the credibility of their testimonies as these erase the suspicion that they have been coached or rehearsed.
In affirming the conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the CA said that while there was no proof that AAA was under 12 years old at the time she was raped, the physical injuries found on her body, as substantiated by the examining physician, proved that the rape was committed "through force, threat, or intimidation," thus, making the act still Rape under Article 266-A (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
The CA, however, modified the damages awarded by adding another P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and by deleting the award of exemplary damages, considering there was no aggravating circumstance attendant in the commission of the rape.
Issue
Whether Miranda's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling of this Court
This Court finds no reason to reverse the courts a quo.
Miranda assails the credibility of AAA and her testimony being inconsistent, improbable, and insufficient.
This Court has repeatedly held that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies appropriately pertains to the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude while they are being examined. Because such impressions cannot be incorporated in the records, all the appellate courts can see are the words as contained in the transcript of testimonies, which are always at risk of being inaccurate due to losses in the process of transcribing them. 5 In the case at bar, the RTC and the CA found both AAA and her testimony to be credible, thus, giving no reason for this Court to disturb such assessment.
Miranda makes much of the fact that AAA was confused as to where she was raped, stating in her sworn testimony that it was in an underpass while during her direct examination, she stated that it was on the second floor of a certain place.
This Court finds no reason to acquit Miranda based on the alleged inconsistency as such is minor and not even an essential element of the crime of rape. Moreover, it is understandable for AAA to make minor inconsistencies in detailing her harrowing experience as she was only 12 years old when she testified before the trial court. "Such inconsistencies on minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed. These discrepancies as to minor matters, irrelevant to the elements of the crime, cannot thus be considered a ground for acquittal." 6
Finally, AAA unhesitatingly identified Miranda as the person who raped her. This she did, while caught off-guard in the company of the social workers during the rescue operation, and in open court during the trial of her case. Such positive and categorical identification of AAA, together with her straightforward testimony, and the ample corroborating evidence the prosecution submitted, cannot be overcome by Miranda's self-serving denial and allegations of incredibility, inconsistency, insufficiency of her testimony and even the one day delay in the investigation of the crime. Miranda has shown no reason for AAA to impute such a serious charge against him, nor has he substantiated by clear and convincing evidence his defense of denial. As such, his defense deserves no weight in law, 7 and cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness. 8
As for the monetary awards, We affirm the award of civil indemnity and moral damages, each in the amount of P50,000.00. In addition, We also award exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00. Exemplary damages are also called for, by way of public example, and to protect the young from sexual abuse. 9 We further subject the indemnity and damages to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 10ISTDAH
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03572 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant RICARDO MIRANDA y AGUIRRE is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to pay the victim AAA, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, ALL with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment. No costs.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 19-30; penned by Judge Silverio Q. Castillo and docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-214481.
3. Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victim's privacy.
4. Rollo, p. 6.
5. People v. Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December 11, 2013.
6. People v. Vergara, G.R. No. 199226, January 15, 2014.
7. People v. Espinosa, 476 Phil. 42, 62-63 (2004).
8. People v. Vergara, supra note 6.
9. People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 177740, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 318, 335.
10. Sison v. People, G.R. No. 187229, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 645, 667.