THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229356. August 9, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JIMMY RABAC y DUMENDEN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 9, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229356 (People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Rabac y Dumenden). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the letter dated May 14, 2017 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since September 14, 2014;
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated May 17, 2017 stating that its Appellee's Brief of August 17, 2015 sufficiently contains a summation of the facts of the case, the issues to be resolved, the arguments in support of plaintiff-appellee's position, the relief sought, and the authorities cited to support its arguments and, thus, it would no longer file a supplemental brief and adopts the same for the purpose of the instant appeal; and ATICcS
(3) accused-appellant's Manifestation (in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief) dated May 22, 2017 stating that a supplemental brief would no longer be filed considering that he had exhaustively discussed the issues presented for resolution in his brief filed before the Court of Appeals.
This appeal assails the Decision 1 dated November 27, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06974 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the August 5, 2014 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 68, in Criminal Case No. L-9011, finding Jimmy Rabac y Dumenden (accused-appellant), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.
Accused-appellant was charged with rape in an Information dated September 14, 2010, to wit:
That at or about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 25, 2010 in Brgy. Bantocaling, Mangatarem, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the natural father of the minor child and having moral ascendancy, with lewd design, with threats and intimidation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one "AAA," 3 a 12-year old minor (DOB-10-11-97) without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code. 4
After weighing the parties' respective arguments and evidence, the court a quo rendered a decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this court finds [accused-appellant] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua, and to pay private complainant the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The accused, who is detained, is credited with the number of days he spent under detention, if he is qualified, otherwise, he shall be credited only with four-fifths (4/5) of his preventive imprisonment, pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
SO ORDERED. 5
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the court a quo but also modified the same with respect to the penalty imposed. The CA stressed that because the accused-appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape, being the natural father of the victim who was a minor, the correct imposable penalty under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code shall be death. However, in view of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of death penalty, the imposable penalty would be reclusionperpetua without benefit of parole. Clearly, while the court a quo correctly imposed the penalty of reclusionperpetua upon the accused-appellant, it, however, failed to include the phrase "without benefit of parole," pursuant to R.A. No. 9346. 6
Further, as the CA affirmed the payment of indemnities by the accused-appellant, it also imposed legal interest on the same at the rate of 6% perannum to be imposed on the aforesaid awards for damages from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid. 7
The decretal portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 68 dated August 5, 2014 is hereby AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION that [accused-appellant] is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua without benefit of parole and ordered to pay private complainant interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of Six Percent (6%) perannum from date of finality of this judgment.
SO ORDERED. 8
In this appeal, accused-appellant remains hard in his stance that he did not commit the crime charged. He faults the court a quo for finding him guilty of the crime of rape despite the prosecution's failure to prove the allegations in the information. 9 He also insists that it was impossible for him to commit the crime charged as he was with several other persons in the mountain of Barangay Bantocaling making charcoal at the time of the alleged rape. According to him, it takes one and a half (1 1/2) hours of walking from the place where they make charcoal before he could reach their house and that on the day of the alleged rape, he only left the place to go home at 4:00 p.m. 10 Accused-appellant further points out not only AAA's long delay in reporting the incident 11 but also her inconsistencies in stating the date of the alleged rape. 12 TIADCc
Ruling of the Court
These arguments do not persuade.
Countless times, it was ruled that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the disposition of the case. 13 This is principally because trial courts have a unique opportunity to assess and observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude during examination. 14
Likewise, it is a settled rule that when a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the victim's testimony is sufficient to support a conviction. 15
In the case at bar, both the court a quo and the CA found the testimonies of AAA to be credible. Likewise, this Court's independent review of the records leads us to the same conclusion. As the CA observed, the inconsistencies in AAA's testimonies were merely inconsequential details that do not adversely affect the case of the prosecution, the substance of their declaration and veracity or weight of their testimonies. 16 If at all, such inconsistencies only prove that the testimonies were not coached. 17
However, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, 18 the Court increases the award of exemplary damages, moral damages and civil indemnity to P100,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06974 dated November 27, 2015 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION and that accused-appellant Jimmy Rabac y Dumenden is ordered to pay AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring; rollo, pp. 2-17.
2. Rendered by Judge Maria Laarni R. Parayno; CA rollo, pp. 41-52.
3. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.
4. CA rollo, p. 41.
5.Id. at 52.
6.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
7.Id. at 16-17.
8.Id.
9.See Appellant's Brief; CA rollo, p. 32.
10.Id. at 31.
11.Id. at 35.
12.Id. at 34.
13.People v. Chang, 382 Phil. 669, 672 (2000).
14.People v. Banzuela, 723 Phil. 797, 814-815 (2013), citing People v. Sapigao, Jr., 614 Phil. 589, 599 (2012).
15.People v. Sumingwa, 618 Phil. 650, 665 (2009).
16.Rollo, p. 12.
17.Id.
18.See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 382-383.