FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252161. March 23, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ABRIL JOSE PEDEMIA y JAMERO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 23, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252161(People of the Philippines v. Abril Jose Pedemia y Jamero). — Before the Court is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated October 31, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02706. The CA affirmed the Decision 3 dated August 24, 2017 of Branch 59, Regional Trial Court (RTC), _____________, Negros Occidental in Criminal Case No. RTC-5588 that found Abril Jose Pedemia y Jamero (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A (1) (a) 4 and penalized under Article 266-B 5 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 6
The Facts
Accused-appellant was charged with Rape in the following Information:
That on June 5, 2015[,] at around 6:00 in the afternoon[,] at _______________________________________________________, Negros Occidental, Philippines[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with [a] sugarcane cutter, a bladed weapon, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and by means of force, threat and intimidation, have carnal knowledge with the victim AAA 7 against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 9
Trial ensued. 10
The CA narrated the antecedents as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
In the evening of 5 June 2015, while AAA was walking home through a sugarcane field, she noticed that a man holding a sugarcane cutter and with a white T-shirt covering his face was following her. Feeling scared and threatened, she ran, but stumbled and fell to the ground. The man caught up with her and laid on top of her. He then pulled up her shirt and bra, and pulled down her panty. She felt his penis entering her vagina as he made several push and pull motions. She struggled with her assailant and when he took off his shirt to bite her, she recognized him as her neighbor whose house she would pass by in going to and from her place of work.
She was able to grapple with the sugarcane cutter, but suffered a cut on her finger. Eventually, she escaped from her attacker and hid in the sugarcane field. She waited there until she heard a motor cab in the vicinity. She came out of the field and requested the motor cab driver to bring her to the _____________ Police Station. There, she reported the matter to SPO2 Jocelyn Regedor (SPO2 Regedor), who was assigned to the Women and Children's Desk.
SPO2 Regedor took the statement of AAA. Together with the Alert Team, of which PO3 Alcon Mendoza (PO3 Mendoza) was a member, they went to the house of the accused-appellant and arrested him. SPO2 Regedor noted that while the accused-appellant was bare-chested, a white T-shirt was hanging on the grills of the house. The following day or on 6 June 2015, she went to the scene of the crime and recovered the victim's panty, watch, and slippers. CAIHTE
Dra. Evelia M. Lausa (Dra. Lausa) examined AAA and issued the Medico-Legal Certificate. Dra. Lausa noted that the victim had abrasions on her left knee, right forearm, and lower right thigh (interior portion); a lacerated wound on her right index finger; soil at her vaginal opening; and an old lacerated wound at the 6 o'clock position. 11
Version of the Defense
On 5 June 2015, the accused-appellant was at the market selling fish from morning until he went home at around 9:30 in the evening. He was surprised when he was pointed to by AAA as the person who raped her and was arrested by the police officers later that night. A certain Wilmore Palanas even saw the accused-appellant at the market between 5:00 in the afternoon and 7:00 in the evening. 12
The Ruling of the RTC
In the Decision 13 dated August 24, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty as charged. The RTC disposed of the case in the following manner:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment finding accused ABRIL JOSE PEDEMIA y Jamero "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of [r]eclusion [p]erpetua.
He is further ordered to pay private complainant AAA the following amounts, to wit:
1.) Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity;
2.) Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos as moral damages;
3.) Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages; and
4.) Cost of suit.
As accused is a detention prisoner, he is given full credit for the period of his detention, provided that he has complied with the rules and regulations of the place where he is detained.
SO ORDERED. 14
The Ruling of the CA
In the Decision 15 dated October 31, 2019, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC in its entirety, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, __________________, Negros Occidental, in Criminal Case No. RTC-5588, dated 24 August 2017, finding accused-appellant Abril Jose Pedemia y Jamero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, is hereby AFFIRMED,
IT IS SO ORDERED. 16
Hence, this appeal.
The Issue
The issue before the Court is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.
The Court's Ruling
After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds no reason to reverse the Decision of the CA.
The elements of Rape under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended, are the following: "(a) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision, [i.e.,] through force, threat or intimidation." 17
In the present case, the facts sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of Rape under the above provision. The Court agrees with the findings of both the RTC and the CA that all the elements of the crime of Rape have been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. In her testimony, AAA positively identified accused-appellant as the man who laid on top of her, pulled up her shirt and bra, pulled down her panty, and inserted his penis into her vagina. 18
To exculpate himself from liability, accused-appellant questions the credibility of the victim. However, time and again, the Court has held that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the Court accords great weight and even finality to the trial court's factual findings thereon, 19 especially when they carry the full concurrence of the CA. 20 This is in recognition of the trial court's unique and distinctive opportunity to be able to observe the demeanor, conduct, and attitude of the witness whose credibility has been put in issue, a vantage point that is denied to appellate courts. 21
Here, the RTC found the testimony of AAA credible and categorical. AAA's narration of the material events that transpired on June 5, 2015 was an unwavering and straightforward account of her rape by accused-appellant. The narration was complete in itself and had established all the elements of Rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC.
Furthermore, AAA's narration was supported by medical findings. The fact that the hymenal laceration was found to be old does not mean that rape was not committed. 22 "A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape." 23 It is well to note that AAA's narration, as corroborated by pertinent medical findings, was not refuted by any other evidence on record. DETACa
On the other hand, accused-appellant failed to point to any significant fact or circumstance which would justify the reversal of the findings against him. Certainly, as compared to his unsubstantiated denial, 24 AAA's narration deserves to be accorded more weight.
Based on the foregoing, the testimony of AAA had positively, categorically, and conclusively established all the elements of the crime of Rape.
The RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC. Moreover, in line with People v. Jugueta, 25 the lower courts correctly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00. 26
The monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 31, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02706 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Abril Jose Pedemia y Jamero is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined under Article 266-A (1) (a) and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All damages 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."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-17.
2.Id. at 5-14. Penned by Associate Justice Alfredo D. Ampuan and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a retired Member of the Court) and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
3. CA rollo, pp. 43-47. Penned by Presiding Judge Kathrine A. Go.
4. Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is Committed —
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation[.]
5. Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
6. CA rollo, p. 46.
7. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to RA 7610, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "RULE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN" (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled "PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES," dated September 5, 2017.)
8.Rollo, p. 6.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 6-7.
12.Id. at 7.
13. CA rollo, pp. 43-47.
14.Id. at 46-47.
15.Rollo, pp. 5-14.
16.Id. at 14.
17.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 252858 (Notice), February 3, 2021.
18.Rollo, pp. 10-13.
19. See People v. Llanas, Jr., 636 Phil. 611, 622 (2010).
20.People v. Magayon, G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020.
21. See People v. XYZ, G.R. No. 228875 (Notice), April 3, 2019.
22.Rollo, pp. 9-10.
23.People v. San Juan, 337 Phil. 375, 389 (1997).
24.Rollo, p. 13.
25. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
26.Id. at 848.