THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202981. January 22, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINADOR NONAILLADA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 22, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202981 (People of the Philippines v. Dominador Nonaillada). — Accused-appellant Dominador Nonaillada (Dominador) was charged with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Antique in Criminal Case 99-5-6093.
NJ 1 testified that she used to live with her father, accused Dominador, and four siblings in their house at Igdamay in Sibalom, Antique. They all slept in one room. On January 8, 1999 when NJ was 16, she was roused from sleep by her father who was on top of her. She realized that she had been stripped of her shorts and panty while her father was naked. He held her by her hands, ordered her not to shout, and had sex with her. He ravished her for about 10 minutes.
A month later or on February 4, 1999 NJ told her uncle, Anacleto Nonaillada, what her father did to her. 2 Anacleto corroborated his niece's action in coming to him. Dr. Emma T. Marfil testified that she examined NJ and found deep lacerations in her and a small round tear at the top of her hymen which was probably caused by penile penetration, accompanied by resistance to it. 3aTcESI
Accused Dominador claimed, on the other hand, that it was highly improbable for him to have raped NJ since her other children slept in the same room. If it was true that he raped her, she could easily have shouted for help from her siblings who slept beside her. Besides, she showed no unusual behavior after the alleged rape. To corroborate his defense, Dominador presented Dioscoro Nonaillada, Danilo Nonaillada, Josefina Nonaillada, and Clarita Baldad.
On September 25, 2003 the RTC found accused Dominador guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay NJ P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00538, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment on July 21, 2011, affirming the findings of the RTC but reducing the sentence to reclusion perpetua. The CA ordered Dominador to pay NJ P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Dominador claims that the RTC and the CA erred in giving full weight and credence to NJ's highly incredible testimony. He points out that it is unnatural for her not to shout and seek help when she was being raped since her siblings were asleep beside her. Further, he argues that NJ's identification of him as the same and who supposedly raped her is quite doubtful, given that the room was dark.
But, first, the Court has to defer to the trial court's estimate of the credibility of the witnesses in this case, especially when affirmed by an appellate court. 4 This deference is based on the fact it was the trial court that heard and observed the witness as he or she told the story. 5 The accused failed to show some sound reason for the Court to abandon the trial court's findings.
Second, NJ's failure to shout for help although her siblings lie by her side does not diminish her credibility. Individuals are made of different stuff. Some are hardy and would fight. Others cringe in fear and terror under the same circumstances. 6 There is no way to standardize human reactions to startling or frightening situations. 7
Third, although the room was dark when accused Dominador raped NJ, she could not have made a mistake in identifying him. She heard him tell her not to shout and she felt his naked body. It is not difficult for one quite familiar with another to identify the latter even by his shadow. 8
Finally, it is quite unnatural for a daughter to concoct a criminal charge, especially rape, against her own father unless it is true. 9 IEaHSD
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS in toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00538 dated July 21, 2011.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Consistent with the ruling of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006], citing Rule on Violence against Women and their Children, Sec. 40; Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act 9262, Rule XI, Sec. 63, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act."), the real name and the personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed in this resolution.
2. TSN, September 16, 1999, pp. 8-23.
3. TSN, January 7, 2000, pp. 5-8.
4. People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 186392, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 426, 440-441, citing People v. Mayingque, G.R. No. 179709, July 6, 2010, 624 SCRA 123, 140.
5. See: People v. SPO1 Brecinio, 469 Phil. 654, 662 (2004).
6. See: People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 141599, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 102, 115.
7. People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 168693, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 74, 90.
8. See: People v. Rosario, 455 Phil. 876, 887 (2003).
9. People v. Ortega, G.R. No. 186235, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 273, 288, citing People v. Surilla, 391 Phil. 257, 267 (2000).