FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196532. April 21, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANDY NUÑEZ y MAGDAONG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 21, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 196532 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDY NUÑEZ y MAGDAONG, Accused-Appellant.
The accused-appellant, Sandy Nuñez y Magdaong, challenges the Decision 1 dated November 30, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03897 of the Court of Appeals, which denied his appeal, affirmed his conviction for qualified rape, and modified his civil liability to conform to current case law.
The accused-appellant was charged in an Information with the rape of his then 15-year old daughter, AAA. 2 He pleaded not guilty when arraigned.
During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that the accused-appellant is the biological father of AAA and that AAA was a minor at the time of the alleged rape.
During trial, AAA testified that sometime in the last week of October 2003, she went with her father to visit her mother in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque City. 3 It was there that he raped her, as follows:
Q: Now, Sandy Nuñez, according to you raped you, will you please tell this Honorable Court what happened?
A: Nakahiga po ako noon sa kama sa kwarto tapos pumasok po siya, tapos po nahiga din po siya, nahiga din iyung tatay ko. Niyakap niya po ako pagkatapos po nun hinubad niya po iyung short[s] at panty ko, pumatong po siya sa akin tapos po pinasok po niya po iyung ari niya sa ari ko.
Q: What did you feel when your father according to you, inserted his private organ into your private organ?
A: Masakit po.4
She was not able to resist because it was not the first time that her father raped her. Besides, he threatened to kill her, her mother BBB, and her elder sister CCC. cAHITS
AAA kept her misfortune to herself until she could no longer bear to suffer in silence, and in April 2005, she relayed to CCC her harrowing experience in the hands of the accused-appellant. CCC lost no time in informing BBB about the matter and AAA was immediately brought to the Philippine General Hospital for medical examination. The results of the medical examination showed that AAA had a healed laceration at the 6:00 o'clock position of her hymen. The medico-legal officer who examined her explained that the injury was caused by a blunt force or penetrating trauma to the said area, which was consistent with rape.
The accused-appellant simply denied the charge against him and claimed that he was in Bicol during the time of the alleged rape. He knew no reason why AAA accused him of rape, but he surmised that she was being used by BBB to get back at him. He also questioned the delay in filing the case against him only in 2006 when the alleged rape happened in 2003.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 260 ruled that the testimony of AAA was direct, credible, and convincing. It was corroborated by the testimony of the medico-legal officer who conducted the medical examination on AAA. In contrast, the accused-appellant's denial and alibi were very weak defenses, which collapsed in the face of the prosecution's strong evidence. Thus, the trial court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the rape of his daughter AAA, who was then a minor. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the testimony of AAA was candid, straightforward, and credible. It was corroborated by the physician's medical findings. Moreover, there was no evidence that AAA had any ill motive to accuse her own father. The appellate court held that the accused-appellant's denial and alibi cannot prevail over the prosecution's clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, the accused-appellant's moral ascendancy over AAA and his threats were sufficient reasons to cow her into silence. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the accused-appellant's conviction, with modification of the civil liability by increasing the awards of civil indemnity to P75,000.00 and of moral damages also to P75,000.00, and additionally granting an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 to conform to recent jurisprudence.
In the present appeal, the accused-appellant insists that AAA's testimony is not candid and straightforward, but suffers from serious improbabilities; that AAA was prodded to file the case against him by BBB who bore ill feelings against him; that his alibi and denial are stronger than the prosecution's evidence; and that AAA's delay in filing the case against him renders doubtful her charge against him.
The appeal fails.
The accused-appellant essentially attacks AAA's credibility. As a rule, however, credibility is the sole province of the trial court. 5 It is well-settled that —
[W]hen the issues revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is so because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. . . . .
In the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case, the trial court's findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal, 6 especially when such findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
This Court has nevertheless carefully scrutinized the records of this case but found no indication that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked or failed to appreciate facts that, if considered, would change the outcome of this case. Thus, we uphold the Court of Appeals' ruling that AAA clearly and categorically established that her father, the accused-appellant, had carnal knowledge of her against her will when she was still a minor. And in light of her candid, straightforward, and credible testimony, the accused-appellant's alibi and denial cannot succeed. EaTCSA
This Court also agrees with the Court of Appeals that the accused-appellant's moral ascendancy over AAA and his threats satisfactorily explained the delay in the filing of the case. AAA was afraid of the accused-appellant's wrath, as she already experienced being hit by her father when he gets mad at her. 7 Moreover, according to the accused-appellant himself, AAA lived in Bicol with him and his parents, away from her mother who was living in Manila. Thus, the totality of the circumstances adequately justifies the alleged delay which attended AAA's filing of the case against the accused-appellant.
The Court is not convinced that BBB would use and manipulate her own daughter AAA to wrongfully accuse the accused-appellant, her husband and AAA's father, of rape, just because BBB harbors ill feelings towards him. It is unthinkable that a mother would sacrifice her daughter's honor to satisfy her grudge, knowing fully well that such an experience would certainly damage her daughter's psyche and mar her entire life. A mother would not subject her daughter to a public trial with its accompanying stigma on her as the victim of rape, if said charges were not true. 8
For having committed qualified rape, the accused-appellant was correctly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In lieu of the death penalty, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, it should be stressed, that this is without the eligibility of parole. 9
The awards to AAA of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages are proper as they are in conformity with recent jurisprudence. 10
In addition, however, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid, pursuant to prevailing case law. 11
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03897 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amounts awarded to AAA shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ruben C. Ayson, concurring.
2. 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.
3. Judgment dated March 10, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court; CA rollo, pp. 43-54, 48.
4. Id. at 46, quoting transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) dated February 7, 2008.
5. People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012, 680 SCRA 386, 413.
6. Id.
7. TSN, February 7, 2,008, pp. 10-11. See also AAA's Sinumpaang Salaysay dated May 16, 2005, Exhibit "B" for the prosecution, where AAA stated that the accused-appellant hurts her when he gets mad at her, and that she did not immediately tell her mother about what the accused-appellant did to her "kasi alam ko masamang magalit si papa (SANDY NU[Ñ]EZ)."
8. People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 376, 393.
9. Id. at 395.
10. Id.
11. Id.