People v. Rilox

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 201841. January 16, 2013.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. EDGAR RILOX @ "AMAY", appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2013 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 201841 — (People of the Philippines v. Edgar Rilox @ "Amay"). — We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Edgar Rilox also known as "Amay" (appellant), from the 07 September 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04353. 1

The RTC Ruling

In its 28 January 2010 judgment, 2 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 57, convicted appellant of two counts of rape 3 committed against a 16-year-old girl, AAA, 4 committed on or about 14 June 2003 and 26 July 2003.

The lower court gave credence to the testimony of AAA, who was able to identify appellant by his face and voice. 5 It found that appellant was a long-time neighbor of the family of AAA, had frequented her home, and even used to drink with her father. 6 The claim of rape was corroborated by the Medical Certificate, issued by the attesting physician who examined the victim on 27 July 2003, a day after the second incident of rape, and found that the latter had suffered hymenal laceration and abrasion in the vaginal area. 7 Although the attesting physician had already gone abroad and was not able to testify during the hearing, Dr. Nicolas Miguel — the head of the Bayambang District Hospital — confirmed the authenticity of the findings in the Medical Certificate after a verification from the official records of the hospital. STHAaD

Appellant's defense of alibi was found to be weak and unconvincing. 8 The RTC also made short shrift of the alleged motive of the victim, which supposedly arose from appellant's discovery of her nocturnal tryst with her boyfriend. It found the purported reaction of appellant to be unnatural, since he should have simply advised AAA and her boyfriend against their actions or informed their respective parents of the discovery.

Hence, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and was ordered to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. 9 The RTC likewise ordered him to pay AAA in each case the amount of P50,0000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 for moral damages, and P25,000 for exemplary damages for his use of a deadly weapon (a balisong), which constituted a special aggravating circumstance; and the cost of suit.

The CA Ruling

In the intermediate appellate review, appellant assailed his rape convictions and argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not convincing.

The CA, however, denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC's appreciation of the findings of fact. The CA rejected the claims of appellant that AAA did not escape, shout for help, or struggle during the incidents despite the opportunity to do so. It found that her age, her relationship with appellant as a neighbor, and the threats to the lives of her family members, as well as her own, "made it plainly understandable how a 16-year old could have been easily intimidated and cowed into submission." 10

Neither did the appellate court give credence to the claim that the criminal complaint was motivated by revenge or resentment against appellant, who purportedly caught the victim having sex with her boyfriend. 11 The CA finally ruled that the lower court did not err in disregarding appellant's defense of denial and alibi, which cannot prevail over the victim's positive identification of her ravisher.

The CA, however, noted that the RTC failed to take into account appellant's use of a deadly weapon (i.e., balisong), as specifically averred in the Informations and proved during trial. The presence of the deadly weapon qualified the crime; hence, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, as provided by Act No. 4103, was ordered imposed. 12 Thus, the CA affirmed the Decision of the trial court, but modified the penalty of reclusion perpetua by further ruling that it would be without eligibility for parole and by increasing the civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000 for each count. 13

Appellant duly received a copy of the Decision rendered by the CA on 14 September 2011 and consequently filed his Notice of Appeal dated 15 September 2011. HcTDSA

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling

We deny the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.

After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of AAA's testimony and its appreciation of appellant's defense of denial and alibi.

Absent any irregularity or grave abuse of discretion in the conduct of the trial and the findings of the RTC to warrant any suspicion about the validity thereof, this Court will not disturb the trial court's conclusions. The findings of the trial courts on the credibility of the victim or of the prosecution witnesses carry great weight and respect. 14 Generally, appellate courts do not overturn these findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that can alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case. 15 Similarly, in the instant case, the Court sees no cogent reason to alter the RTC's findings, which were affirmed by the CA.

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, 16 when the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, it is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. 17 Since the imposition of death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, the RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. 18

While we affirm the CA's factual findings and the penalty of imprisonment imposed, we find it necessary to increase the exemplary damages awarded to the victim to P30,000 to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. 19

WHEREFORE, the 07 September 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04353 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Edgar Rilox, also known as "Amay," is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape on two counts and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages, for each count, plus cost of suit."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso, and concurred in by Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Angelita A. Gacutan; CA rollo, pp. 90-104.

2.Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. SCC-4052 to 53; CA rollo, pp. 9-17.

3.See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-A, in relation to Section 5 of R.A. 7610, "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."

4.On account of the minority of the rape victim, her real name is withheld and fictitious initials are used to represent her. (People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419.)

5.CA rollo, pp. 13-14; RTC Decision dated 28 January 2010, pp. 5-6.

6.Id. at 14.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 14-16.

9."WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, Edgar Rilox a.k.a. Amay GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the two (2) counts of rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. The accused is likewise ordered to pay the private complainant in each case civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for use of deadly weapon constituting a special aggravating circumstance and the cost of suit." (Id. at 17; RTC Decision dated 28 January 2010, p. 9)

10.Rollo, p. 14; CA Decision dated 07 September 2011, p. 13.

11.Id. at 14-15.

12.Id. at 15.

13."WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed January 28, 2010 Decision is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS in that: a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole be imposed; and b) the award of P50,000.00 in civil indemnity and P50,000.00 in moral damages, in relation to the case of qualified rape, be both increased to P75,000.00 (or a total of P150,000.00) for each count of rape." (Id. at 16.)

14.People v. Milagrosa, 466 Phil. 86 (2004).

15.Id.

16."Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death." (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-B)

17.People v. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 05 October 2011, 658 SCRA 746.

18."Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended." (Republic Act No. 9346, Sec. 3)

19.People v. Nachor, G.R. No. 177779, 14 December 2010, 638 SCRA 317; and People v. Deri, G.R. No. 166566, 23 November 2010, 635 SCRA 733.