THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226157. June 19, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FORTUNATO BATULAN OPANDA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 19, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226157 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. FORTUNATO BATULAN OPANDA, accused-appellant). — This Court resolves the appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals' February 23, 2016 Decision 2 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05916, affirming the conviction of Fortunato Batulan Opanda (Opanda) for three (3) counts of rape. 3
Three (3) Informations were filed against Opanda, charging him with the crime of rape. The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-05-137072-74. The Informations read:
Crim. Case No. Q-05-137072
That on or about the 22nd day of September 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had (sic) carnal knowledge against one [BBB], a minor, 13 years of age, against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Crim. Case No. Q-05-137073
That on or about the 21st day of September 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had (sic) carnal knowledge against one [BBB], a minor, 13 years of age, against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Crim. Case No. Q-05-137074
That on or about the 21st day of September 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had (sic) carnal knowledge against one [AAA], a minor, 14 years of age, against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party. AIDSTE
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, Opanda pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against him. 5 Pre-trial was conducted, and trial on the merits began.
The version 6 of the prosecution was as follows:
AAA and BBB knew Opanda from the route they took when collecting garbage to sell. He introduced himself to them as Bruce Lee and gave them a can of soda. Since then, he would give them steel to sell. 7
On September 21, 2005, the sisters borrowed Opanda's cellphone to play games. At about 11:00 p.m., AAA and BBB went to Opanda's house after he texted them that he had some bronze to give them. BBB stayed downstairs while AAA and Opanda went upstairs and into an air-conditioned room. There, Opanda covered AAA's mouth and asked her for payment for the steel he had been giving them. He then tied her to a steel bar, left, and returned with BBB. 8
Opanda then asked BBB for their father's number, and when she refused to give it, he slapped her. When she tried to shout, he gagged her mouth, then tied her to another steel bar. He then got a plastic and placed it over her head. Opanda then left the room and returned with a beer. 9
After Opanda repeatedly asked AAA for her father's number, AAA responded with a friend's phone number. Opanda left, and when he came back, he said that she gave him an incorrect number. Opanda told her that he would kill her. He then asked them if they would have sex with him, and they said they would not. Opanda then removed AAA's short pants and underwear, then tore her blouse and bra with a knife. He left the room and returned with a plastic, which he placed on BBB's head. He left again and came back with a mat. He untied AAA and had her lie on the mat, undressed himself, then inserted his finger inside her vagina. AAA felt pain. He then licked her vagina before inserting his penis into it, while licking her breast and kissing her lips. AAA cried in pain. After raping her, Opanda had her stand up, dressed her in his clothes, transferred her to another room, and tied her. 10
Opanda then returned to the room and asked BBB if she wanted to be raped or to be killed. Because Opanda was holding a knife, she had no choice but to do as asked. He untied her and ordered her to take her clothes off, after which he told her to lie down. He then inserted his penis into her vagina while touching her breast. 11
When the rape was over, Opanda later brought BBB to the same room where AAA was, and tied her as well. Both girls slept in this position. 12
Opanda later brought the girls some food, then locked the door. When Opanda returned the next morning, they told him that they wanted to go home. He said they could go home at night. Opanda then brought BBB to another room, where he raped her again. 13
Later, while Opanda was gone, AAA and BBB escaped through a hole in the room. 14
A couple of days later, the sisters told a fellow churchgoer, Auntie Babes, what had happened. She took them to the police station to report the incident. The sisters then executed sworn statements with their father's help. 15
In his defense, Opanda testified that he first met the sisters on September 21, 2005, when he gave them some tin cans. One (1) of them introduced herself as Ai-ai, and he told them to call him Kuya Bruce. They talked for 20 minutes. After the sisters left, Opanda slept. The next day, at around noon, the sisters passed by his place again and waved at him. Later, police officers came to his home and took him to the police station, where he saw the sisters again. Opanda told the police officers that he did not do anything. He was then put in jail, and only during inquest proceedings did he learn that he had been accused of rape. 16
In an August 22, 2012 Judgment, 17 the Regional Trial Court convicted Opanda of three (3) counts of rape. It noted that AAA and BBB positively identified Opanda as the man who raped them, finding their testimonies credible, straightforward, and narrated in a way typical of young rape victims. It further held that Opanda's denial is not enough to rebut the eyewitness testimonies categorically and positively identifying him as the rapist, when no ill motives on the witnesses' part were established. 18 AaCTcI
The dispositive portion of the Judgment read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused FORTUNATO BATULAN OPANDA Guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three (3) counts of rape.
Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each count and to indemnify each of the private complainants [AAA] and [BBB] the amounts of P75,000.00 for each count as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 for each count as moral damages and P25,000.00 for each count as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.19 (Emphasis in the original)
Opanda filed a Notice of Appeal 20 to question the case before the Court of Appeals.
In a February 23, 2016 Decision, 21 the Court of Appeals affirmed Opanda's conviction for three (3) counts of rape, but reduced the amount of civil indemnity to be paid since Opanda was proved guilty of simple rape with no qualifying circumstances. 22 The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision read:
We MODIFY the Decision dated 22 August 2012 of the RTC Branch 102, Quezon City, as follows:
1. in Criminal Case No. Q-05-137072, we find accused-appellant Fortunato Batulan Opanda GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and sentence him to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua;
2. in Criminal Case No. Q-05-137073, we find accused-appellant Fortunato Batulan Opanda GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and sentence him to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua;
3. in Criminal Case No. Q-05-137074, we find accused-appellant Fortunato Batulan Opanda GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and sentence him to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua;
4. we order accused-appellant Fortunato Batulan Opanda to indemnify AAA and BBB the following sums: P50,000.00 for each count of rape (as civil indemnity); P50,000.00 for each count of rape (as moral damages); and P30,000.00 for each count of rape (as exemplary damages), plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision, until the award is fully satisfied.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
Thus, Opanda filed a Notice of Appeal 24 before the Court of Appeals.
In accordance with its March 28, 2016 Resolution 25 giving due course to Opanda's Notice of Appeal, the Court of Appeals elevated the case records to this Court. 26 This Court then required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. 27
Both plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, 28 and accused-appellant 29 filed their Manifestations, stating that they would no longer file supplemental briefs and instead adopt the Briefs they filed before the Court of Appeals.
For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether or not accused-appellant Fortunato Batulan Opanda is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
The appeal lacks merit.
This Court gives the highest respect to the trial court's factual findings, assessment of the witnesses' credibility and the probative weight accorded to them, as well as the conclusions based on these factual findings. Generally, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, this Court will not reexamine them. These questions are matters best left to trial courts, which had the opportunity to observe the conduct of the witnesses. 30 In People v. Castel: 31
Findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court. What militates against the claim of appellant is the time-honored rule that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court. The trial court has the unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath — all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. EcTCAD
Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, the trial court's assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and to detect if they were lying. 32 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Here, the Regional Trial Court found AAA and BBB to be credible as young victims of rape. Thus, it gave their testimonies full weight and credence, while finding accused-appellant's bare denial to be weak and self-serving. These findings were echoed by the Court of Appeals. This Court has found no cogent reason to reverse these conclusions.
Thus, with regard to accused-appellant's conviction, we affirm the Court of Appeals Decision, which read:
Applicable is Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), of the Revised Penal Code ("RPC"). The elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), of the RPC are as follows: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished this act through force, threat or intimidation.
The first element was present. Accused-appellant Fortunato had carnal knowledge of AAA once, and carnal knowledge of BBB twice. Both AAA and BBB are female.
AAA testified that on the night of 21 September 2005, accused-appellant Fortunato inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina. BBB testified that accused-appellant Fortunato inserted his penis inside BBB's vagina on the night of 21 September 2005, and in the morning of 22 September 2005.
The second element was present. Accused-appellant Fortunato used force, threat, and intimidation in committing carnal knowledge with AAA and BBB.
As an element of rape, force, threat or intimidation need not be irresistible, but just enough to bring about the desired result.
Accused-appellant Fortunato used force, threat, and intimidation, against AAA and BBB (i.e., accused-appellant Fortunato tied AAA and BBB to steel bars; accused-appellant Fortunato slapped BBB in the face; accused-appellant Fortunato threatened to kill AAA if AAA would not allow accused-appellant Fortunato to touch AAA; accused-appellant Fortunato used a knife to remove AAA's clothes; accused-appellant Fortunato had a knife beside him while he was having carnal knowledge with AAA, and with BBB; accused-appellant Fortunato threatened to stab AAA in the vagina if AAA would not allow accused-appellant Fortunato to have carnal knowledge with her; accused-appellant Fortunato threatened BBB that he had previously raped, killed, and thrown children's bodies away; accused-appellant Fortunato locked AAA and BBB inside the room).
xxx xxx xxx
Accused-appellant Fortunato denied the allegations of AAA and BBB. Accused-appellant Fortunato claimed that he only met AAA and BBB when accused-appellant Fortunato gave them tin cans. In addition, accused-appellant Fortunato questioned the credibility of the testimonies of AAA and BBB and raised the fact that the Prosecution did not present any medical certificate to prove the rape.
The Court rejects accused-appellant Fortunato's denial.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, accused-appellant Fortunato merely denied all the allegations of AAA and BBB, and accused-appellant Fortunato claimed that he gave AAA and BBB tin cans, and then he left.
The Court rejects accused-appellant Fortunato's attack on AAA and BBB's credibility. HSAcaE
xxx xxx xxx
An accused can be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction. 33 (Citations omitted)
However, in line with current jurisprudence, 34 for each count of rape, accused-appellant is held liable to pay the victims: (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' February 23, 2016 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05916 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, as follows:
1. in Criminal Case No. Q-05-137072, accused-appellant Fortunato Batulan Opanda is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and is sentenced to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua;
2. in Criminal Case No. Q-05-137073, accused-appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and is sentenced to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua;
3. in Criminal Case No. Q-05-137074, accused-appellant is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and is sentenced to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua;
4. accused-appellant is ordered to pay AAA: (1) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity; (2) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and (3) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages, for each of the two (2) counts of rape against her; and
5. accused-appellant is ordered to pay BBB: (1) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity; (2) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and (3) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages, for one (1) count of rape against her.
All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 35
SO ORDERED." (Peralta, J., no part; Hernando, J., on official leave; Gesmundo, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated June 10, 2019.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-16. The appeal was filed under Rule 124, sec. 13 (c) of the Rules of Court.
2.Id. at 2-13. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 12.
4. CA rollo, p. 18.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 19-21.
7.Id. at 19.
8.Id. at 19-20.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 19.
11.Id. at 20.
12.Id. at 19-20.
13.Id. at 19.
14.Id. at 19-21.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 21-22.
17.Id. at 18-24. The Judgment was penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Lourdes A. Giron of Branch 102, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
18.Id. at 24.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 25-26.
21.Rollo. pp. 2-13.
22.Id. at 11.
23.Id. at 11-12.
24.Id. at 14-16.
25.Id. at 17.
26.Id. at 1.
27.Id. at 19-20.
28.Id. at 21-25.
29.Id. at 28-32.
30.People v. Castel, 593 Phil. 288 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, R.T., En Banc].
31.Id.
32.Id. at 315-316.
33.Rollo, pp. 9-11.
34.See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
35.See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].