FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221426. March 25, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JIMMY PAJALLA y CERVANTES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 25, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221426 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY PAJALLA y CERVANTES, Accused-Appellant. — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal from the September 8, 2014 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06299 for failure of the accused-appellant to prove that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the decision 2 dated June 3, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Legazpi City, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts of Rape in Criminal Case Nos. FC-07-0126 to FC-07-0132.
Herein accused-appellant casts doubt on the credibility of the victim for her failure to report the incident as well as the other incidences of sexual abuse. He also contended that the rape could not have happened because the location where the alleged abuses had been committed was crowded as it was the same room where her other siblings sleep as well.
The appeal lacks merit.
In reviewing cases involving sexual transgressions, the Court observes the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 3 Considering these precepts, We are morally convinced that the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of rape.
As correctly ruled upon by the lower courts, the testimony of the victim was credible and worthy of belief. The victim had convincingly narrated the events leading to the abuses committed by the accused-appellant against her. It is settled that the testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature, as in this case, deserve full credence considering that no young woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. It is highly improbable for an innocent girl of tender years like the victim, who is naive to the things of this world, to fabricate a charge so humiliating not only to herself but also to her family. 4 As such, We affirm the lower court's assessment of the credibility of the victim's testimony that herein accused-appellant had indeed abused her on seven different occasions. DETACa
We likewise reject the accused-appellant's challenge anent the improbability of the place and the situation where the rape incidents had occurred. The fact that the rape was committed in a less private location where there are a lot of people does not make rape impossible. It has been consistently held that lust is not a respecter of time and place. 5 Incidents of sexual abuse can occur in both public and private places. It can occur in the privacy of the bedroom to the most public of places; from the most prurient to the most sacred. Especially so in this case where the totality of the evidence all point to the fact that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim.
We note however, that modification of the penalties imposed by the CA is necessary to conform with A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC and our ruling in People v. Jugueta. 6 Accordingly, we delete the phrase "not eligible for parole" in imposing the sentence of reclusion perpetua; and increase the award for civil indemnity and moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 for each case, and exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00 for each case.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the September 8, 2014 decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06299 by deleting the phrase "not eligible for parole" from the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering the accused-appellant to pay AAA the following amounts: civil indemnity amounting to P75,000.00 in each case; moral damages amounting to P75,000.00 in each case; and exemplary damages of P75,000.00, in each case.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Lazaro-Javier, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated March 20, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-26; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurred by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and Associate Justice Melchor Q. C. Sadang (retired).
2. CA rollo, pp. 38-53; penned by Presiding Judge Isabelo T. Rojas.
3.People v. Salidaga, G.R. No. 172323, January 29, 2007, 513 SCRA 306, 312.
4.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 172322, September 8, 2006, 501 SCRA 325, 337.
5.People v. Cabral, G.R. No. 179946, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 160, 166.
6. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 282-283.