FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210450. March 4, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SALVIO PURA y ERESO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 4, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210450 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALVIO PURA y ERESO, Accused-Appellant) — The Court DENIES the appeal from the decision 1 promulgated on July 10, 2013 by the Court of Appeals (CA) for failure of the accused-appellant to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in affirming with modifications the decision 2 rendered on November 24, 2009, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 42, Virac, Catanduanes, finding the accused-appellant guilty of three (3) counts of Qualified Rape as defined and penalized under Paragraph 1 (a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
The CA held therein that the finding of the trial judge on the credibility of a rape victim, if supported by physical evidence, must be respected by the appellate court because the trial judge had the unique opportunity to personally observe the demeanor and manner of testimony of the rape victim. 3 The appellate court did not sustain the accused-appellant's argument that rape could not have happened because BBB (AAA's mother) and the rest of the family, were sleeping close by when the rape occurred. Furthermore, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime charged.
The Court sees no error on the part of the CA.
A review of the records would show how AAA had positively identified the accused-appellant as the one who had carnal knowledge of her and that he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation and grave abuse of authority as he had moral ascendancy over her. The qualifying circumstance of relationship had also been established through the presentation of AAA's Certificate of Life Birth indicating that the accused-appellant was her father.
With regard to the accused-appellant's argument that it was improbable that he committed rape considering that the rest of the family were sleeping close by, the CA had correctly ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place. Several times, the Court has held that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many, would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. 4 CAIHTE
From the foregoing, there is no denying that the prosecution was able to establish the culpability of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
As regards the accused-appellant's challenge to the credibility of AAA, suffice it to say that she had testified in a "straightforward, candid and convincing manner leaving no room for doubt that she was indeed repeatedly ravished." When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. 5 Also, it is against human nature for a 13-year-old girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself, as well as her family, to a lifetime of shame, especially when her charge could mean the death or lifetime imprisonment of her own father. 6
Moreover, both the trial court and the appellate court were correct in disregarding the defense of the accused. It is settled that denial is an inherently weak defense. Such being the case, a mere denial, just like an alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. 7 As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail. 8
However, We deem it necessary to modify the accused-appellant's civil liability to be in tune with current jurisprudence. Considering that the accused-appellant was adjudged guilty of three (3) counts of qualified rape and meted with the penalty of death but had only been reduced to reclusion perpetua due to the passage of R.A. No. 9346 which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, there is a need to increase the award of civil indemnity to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), while the award for moral and exemplary damages should also be increased to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for each count, based on our ruling in People v. Jugueta. 9
Finally, the Court also deems it proper to impose an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid in accordance with current jurisprudence. 10
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal for lack of merit; AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the decision promulgated on July 10, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04242; ORDERS the accused-appellant to indemnify the victim AAA in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity, One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages for each count of Qualified Rape; and IMPOSES interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded from the date of finality of this resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., took no part; Leonen, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 27, 2019. DETACa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang with the concurrence of Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante.
2. CA rollo, pp. 37-43; penned by Acting Presiding Judge James Stewart Ramon E. Himalaloan.
3.Supra note 1, at 9; citing People vs. Lantano, G.R. No. 176734, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 640, 651-652.
4.Id., at p. 10; citing People v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 318.
5.People v. Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 587, 595.
6.People v. Dimanawa, G.R. No. 184600 (Resolution), March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 770, 780.
7.People v. Hashim, G.R. No. 194255, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 549, 559.
8.People v. Tejero, G.R. No. 187744, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 244, 258.
9. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
10.Sison v. People, G.R. No. 187229, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 645, 667.