FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193767. June 26, 2013.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERWIN MORO y CATALUNA, JERRY BACARAN y ILUSTRE, and ROLANDO MEJIA y GALANG, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 26, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 193767 — THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus ERWIN MORO y CATALUNA, JERRY BACARAN y ILUSTRE, and ROLANDO MEJIA y GALANG, accused-appellants.
On appeal is the March 25, 2010 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, of Quezon City convicting appellants of three counts of rape.
Briefly, the prosecution proved the following facts. In the evening of November 22, 1997, after having dinner with her father, 21-year-old AAA 3 went to the house of BBB to spend the night as BBB's husband worked in the night shift. While BBB was cooking in the kitchen and AAA was watching television, Ruel Solis (Solis) arrived and invited AAA to drink with him and his friends in a nearby store. When AAA declined the invitation, Solis left. Then came appellants Jerry Bacaran (Bacaran) and Erwin Moro (Moro) who again invited AAA to drink with them. AAA again declined their invitation, but Solis returned a second time to invite her again. At that, AAA finally acceded and joined their drinking session since their persistence caused her to be embarrassed before BBB. 4
As they were drinking, AAA felt dizzy after drinking only three shots of gin. While AAA was in said weakened state, appellants Bacaran, Moro, and Rolando Mejia (Mejia), and a certain Allan John Rio (Rio), carried her to a nondescript structure located in an unlighted area hidden by tall cogon leaves with no other houses in sight. 5 aSCHIT
Inside the structure which had a roof but no walls, AAA was laid down on a wooden bunk. Despite AAA's resistance, appellants removed her clothing. 6 Thereafter appellants and their companions took turns raping AAA.
Solis was the first to go on top of AAA. While appellants were holding her arms, kissing her lips and sucking her nipples, Solis inserted his penis into AAA's vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. AAA attempted to kick Solis away but he was too strong for her. After about three minutes, Solis left. Bacaran then undressed himself, inserted his penis into AAA's vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. During this time, Mejia was kissing the different parts of AAA's body while Rio and Moro were holding her down. After Bacaran was done, he also left. Mejia then took his turn, inserted his penis into AAA's vagina and also had sexual intercourse with her. At this point, AAA was so weak that she could not offer even feeble resistance to appellants' acts. While Mejia was raping her, Rio and Moro took turns kissing her lips and body parts. After about three minutes, Mejia left. Moro and Rio then took their turns, one after the other, inserting their penises into AAA's vagina and having sexual intercourse with her. After satiating their bestial desires appellants left. AAA felt dizzy and fell asleep. 7
When AAA woke up, it was around 3 a.m. already of November 23, 1997. Her head was spinning and she vomited. She put on her clothes and went to a friend's house and slept there as she was too tired and disoriented. Later that night, AAA reported the rape to the barangay and the police. A medico-legal examination was thereafter conducted on AAA and it was found that her bruises and injuries were sustained possibly by fistic blows or falling down. 8 CcAITa
For their defense, appellants and their co-accused Rio denied that they raped AAA. They claimed that they invited AAA to drink with them and after she had one bottle of beer AAA left with Solis, her boyfriend. AAA and Solis went to a dance party in a nearby vacant lot. After they finished drinking, appellants went to the dance party also. From there, they all went to the makeshift structure where they continued drinking. After drinking, AAA asked Solis to accompany her to answer a call of nature and they did not return anymore. AAA later told appellant Bacaran and his live-in-partner, who happened also to be AAA's friend and in whose house AAA stayed after the incident, that she had a fight with Solis. Appellants claimed that AAA filed the charges to compel them to reveal the whereabouts of Solis, who remains at large and is allegedly the sole perpetrator. 9
The RTC found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties for each count, but acquitted Rio on the ground of reasonable doubt. They were ordered to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as moral damages for each count. The RTC meticulously scrutinized the mien and deportment of AAA during trial when she narrated in simple language her ordeal while painfully ignoring the intermittent sarcastic snickers of the appellants. In the whole, the RTC found AAA's testimony credible. The RTC also noted that AAA's testimony is supported by the result of the medico-legal examination. It was only on the part of the participation of co-accused Rio that there was doubt for AAA herself admitted that she did not see him in the structure. The RTC noted that it was doubtful that she saw Rio as the one who last raped her since she was already unconscious when Rio allegedly raped her.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape but modified the monetary damages awarded. Appellants were ordered to pay AAA P50,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as civil indemnity for each count of rape. THaDEA
After a careful review of this case, 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 has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. Absent any showing in this case that the lower courts overlooked 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. 10
We hereby add the amount of P30,000 as exemplary damages for each count.
However, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, 11 appellants are likewise liable to pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The March 25, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01309 affirming the conviction of appellants Erwin Moro y Cataluna, Jerry Bacaran y Ilustre, and Rolando Mejia y Galang for three counts of rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellants are also ordered to pay P30,000 as exemplary damages for each of the three counts of rape.
Interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all the damages awarded in this case from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
With costs against the appellants. ITCHSa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-21. Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Francisco P. Acosta concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01309.
2.CA rollo, pp. 27-40. Penned by Judge Monina A. Zenarosa.
3.The victim's real name, as well as the names of her immediate family and other personal circumstances tending to identify her, is withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426.
4.Rollo, p. 5.
5.Id. at 6.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8.Id. at 7-10; CA rollo, pp. 29-32.
9.Id. at 10-11.
10.See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
11.People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013, p. 19.