FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199447. April 7, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROLANDO PANIM, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 7, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199447 (People of the Philippines v. Rolando Panim). — Before this Court is an appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated 21 July 2011, which affirmed the Judgment 2 of conviction issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Carigara, Leyte, Branch 36, finding appellant guilty of qualified rape (incestuous rape).
Briefly, the established facts are as follows: In the early evening of 05 April 2005, 17-year-old AAA and her younger brother were watching television in their living room when appellant, her father, summoned her to go upstairs and give him a massage. When she was done giving appellant a massage, he ordered her to lie on the floor. She resisted, but he pushed her down and pinioned her. Appellant hurriedly undressed the two of them, then fondled AAA and forced himself into her. Thereafter, she dressed and went downstairs. That instance of rape was just one of the countless occasions of sexual molestations that appellant did to AAA in the past, but she kept mum to avoid trouble. She only broke her silence when her mother, a domestic helper in Hong Kong, came home in May 2005. After AAA related the abuses to her mother, the two of them filed a complaint before the Municipal Police Station of San Miguel, Leyte, on 23 May 2005. AAA submitted herself to the Municipal Health Officer for examination on the same day. The medical findings showed a non-intact hymen with healed lacerations indicating previous penetrations, and open introitus/porta. 3 HCATEa
Consequently, appellant was charged with qualified rape. He pleaded not guilty during arraignment and interposed the defense of denial during trial. He claimed that AAA harboured a grudge against him for chastising her about her truancy in school and for refusing to give her money from her mother's remittance in March 2005. He added that AAA got so mad that she stayed in her classmate's boarding house from 4 to 7 April 2005 in Tacloban City, thus, he could not have committed the rape on 5 April 2005. 4
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape. It sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole and to pay AAA moral damages and civil indemnity, each in the amount of P75,000, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. The RTC ruled that all elements of the crime had sufficiently been proven by the prosecution. The trial court found that the testimony of AAA was straightforward, candid, unbiased and convincing; and that the spontaneity of her demeanor, which was punctuated by crying, only inspired belief and credence. In contrast, the appellant's testimony was incredible. Thus, the RTC ruled that the lone testimony of AAA, supported by medical findings, sufficed to sustain a judgment of conviction. 5
On appeal, the CA sustained the findings of the RTC and affirmed the latter's Decision. The CA held that AAA's failure to cry or shout for help did not make her claim of forced sexual penetration any less believable, as her testimony clearly showed that her quiet physical resistance proved futile. Moreover, the CA rejected the argument of appellant that he cannot be convicted of rape without any proof of physical force and intimidation. It ruled that his moral ascendancy, being AAA's father, substituted for force and intimidation; thus, proof of physical force and intimidation was not crucial to his conviction. 6 cASEDC
After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the CA Decision. The rule is that the findings 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 these findings, are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This rule applies all the more if such findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in this case. It is settled, too, that in incestuous rape cases, the abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence of a father over his daughter can subjugate her will and thereby force her to do whatever he wants. Otherwise stated, the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. 7 Thus, proof of noticeable physical resistance by AAA and of force and intimidation by appellant is not needed to support his conviction for qualified rape.
However, to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 must be increased to P30,000. 8
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 21 July 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00750 affirming the conviction of appellant Rolando Panim is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages, plus interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED." caSDCA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 4-19; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 32-51; penned by Judge Lauro A.P. Castillo, Jr.
3. Id. at 35-40, 44-47.
4. Id. at 40-42.
5. Id. at 44-48.
6. Rollo, pp. 10-17.
7. See People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, 3 April 2013, 695 SCRA 54.
8. People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, 5 June 2013, 697 SCRA 530.