FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208075. June 4, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO MONTEMAYOR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 4, 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 208075 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versusFERNANDO MONTEMAYOR, accused-appellant.
On appeal before this Court is the February 28, 2013 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the judgment 2 of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, of Guagua, Pampanga. The RTC found appellant guilty for the rape of 18-year-old AAA. 3
Briefly, the prosecution proved the following facts. AAA met appellant for the first time on January 1, 2000, when she was staying with her grandmother in the resettlement at Floridablanca, Pampanga. They talked for 30 minutes, and in the evening of the same day, appellant invited AAA to his house so that he can introduce her to his parents. AAA readily went with appellant for she considered him a friend already. However, appellant did not bring AAA to his parent's house but to a nipa hut which he owned. On the pretext of wanting to show AAA something, appellant convinced AAA to go into the nipa hut. Inside, appellant suddenly embraced AAA. When AAA struggled, he punched AAA's thighs to weaken her. Then he inserted his fingers into AAA's vagina. He undressed AAA, unzipped his pants, and succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. Appellant told AAA that if she screamed for help something bad would happen to her. After satisfying his lust, he brought AAA to the house of the sister of AAA's grandmother in the resettlement area and told her not to tell anyone about what happened. 4SIHCDA
Despite appellant's threat, however, AAA immediately told her grandmother what had transpired. The next morning, AAA and her grandmother went to the barangay hall to report the rape. Appellant was summoned by the barangay captain, and AAA positively identified appellant as the one who raped her. On January 5, 2000, AAA also underwent medical examination. According to Dr. Evelyn Gomez Aguas, the medico-legal who conducted the physical examination, there was a healed laceration at the 3 o'clock position in AAA's hymen. 5
Appellant, for his part, denied that he raped AAA. He claimed that the only time he saw AAA was during the arraignment. He also claimed that he was at his house in Consuelo, Floridablanca taking care of his parents and wife on the night of the rape. 6
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. The RTC characterized AAA's testimony as clear, convincing, and free from material contradictions. The trial court also noted that she was explicit and unequivocal in identifying appellant as the one who raped her. Thus, the RTC held that appellant's denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of AAA. This was especially so since appellant's alibi that he was in his house at the time of the rape cannot be given credence for the locus criminis and appellant's house were in the same barangay. The RTC further noted that appellant did not even attempt to present any witness to corroborate his alibi.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. The appellate court found that AAA clearly testified that appellant threatened her when he raped her. Appellant even punched AAA's thighs to weaken her as she struggled to free herself from his embrace. TESDcA
Undaunted, appellant filed the present appeal essentially questioning the credibility of AAA.
The Court affirms the decision of the CA. We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. There is no showing that either the RTC or the CA committed any error in law and in its findings of fact especially 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. 7 The RTC and the CA found that AAA's testimony was candid, straightforward, and credible. She was able to recount in a categorical and consistent manner how appellant raped her. AAA likewise unwaveringly and positively identified appellant as the one who raped her while appellant's alibi that he was in his house was uncorroborated, and he failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be in the locus criminis. Moreover, the findings in the medical examination conducted on AAA further bolstered her testimony. Additionally, AAA was not shown to have been impelled by any ill motive to testify falsely against appellant.
We deem it proper however, to increase the amount of exemplary damages from P25,000 to P30,000 to conform with existing jurisprudence.
Also, we impose interest on the amount of damages awarded in this case considering that there has been delay in the recovery. The imposition is hereby declared to be also a natural and probable consequence of the acts of the accused complained of. The interest imposed is the legal rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid, in line with recent jurisprudence. 8
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The February 28, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04714 affirming the conviction of appellant Fernando Montemayor for simple rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the amount of exemplary damages is increased from P25,000 to P30,000. Appellant is hereby also ordered to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
With costs against the appellant. cHAIES
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-11. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Francisco P. Acosta concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04714.
2. CA rollo, pp. 20-32. Penned by Judge Jonel S. Mercado.
3. The victim's real name, personal circumstances and any other detail tending to compromise her identity are withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006).
4. Rollo, pp. 3-4.
5. Id. at 4.
6. Id. at 5.
7. People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
8. People v. Taguibuya, G.R. No. 180497, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 685, 693-694.