FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207297. June 9, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTOS SAMSON y GUILLEN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 9, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207297 (People of the Philippines v. Santos Samson y Guillen). — This resolves the appeal by accused-appellant Santos Samson y Guillen (Samson) from the Decision 1 dated August 15, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04755, which affirmed his conviction for four (4) counts of Rape by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 59.
Samson was accused of rape in four separate informations filed with the RTC and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 27191-R, 27192-R, 27193-R and 27194-R. All charges were for the rape of his daughter, minor AAA, 2 on various dates in March 2004, April 2004 and September 2005. Upon arraignment, Samson pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 3
The prosecution alleged that sometime during the first week of March 2004, AAA and her father Samson were by themselves in their house in Baguio City when the latter called AAA to the bedroom which he shared with BBB, AAA's mother. AAA, who was born on January 27, 1993, 4 was only 11 years old at that time. While inside the bedroom, AAA was instructed by Samson to undress. Although AAA initially refused to accede to her father's order, she eventually obeyed him out of fear. Samson then instructed AAA to lie down on a bed. He undressed himself, inserted his penis into the young girl's vagina and performed push and pull motions. Samson told AAA not to report the incident to anyone. 5
AAA was again raped by Samson sometime during the third week of March 2004. AAA was watching television at their house when her father told her to go to his bedroom. AAA refused to obey, prompting Samson to drag her into the room. Again, Samson ordered AAA to undress, and then forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. This time, AAA reported the incident to her mother, who confronted Samson. BBB, however, failed to take further action on the matter. 6
Similar incidents old rape recurred in April 2004 and September 2005. Samson raped her daughter whenever BBB was not with them at their house. 7
AAA eventually left her parents' home and went on to live in the houses of her friends. She eventually reported the rape incidents to her maternal uncle and aunt, who brought her to the Department of Social Welfare and Development and assisted her in the filing of complaints against Samson. 8aTICAc
Samson, for his part, denied the charges against him. He claimed to have been a good father to AAA. He supposed that AAA cried rape to get back at him as her father, and to allow her to have more time with her boyfriend. There were instances when he would scold AAA for spending too much time with her friends and boyfriend. AAA, nonetheless, would disobey his commands and would spend nights at her boyfriend's house. Samson also assumed that his in-laws persuaded AAA into filing the rape cases, since they had never approved of him. 9
On August 10, 2010, the RTC rendered its Joint Judgment 10 finding Samson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of rape. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to pay the offended party the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.
Upon automatic appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, with modification in that the award of moral and exemplary damages, per count of rape, was increased to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively. Accordingly, the CA declared Samson liable to pay AAA the total amount of P300,000.00 as civil indemnity, P300,000.00 as moral damages and P120,000.00 as exemplary damages. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the awards was also imposed, to be computed from the date of finality of judgment of conviction, until full payment of the monetary awards. 11
Hence, this appeal where Samson raises the same assignment of errors made in his CA appeal, viz.: (1) the trial court gravely erred in giving full credence to AAA's questionable version; and (2) the trial court gravely erred in convicting Samson despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 12
The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse Samson's conviction.
In considering the weight of AAA's testimony against her father, the Court gives regard to the oft-repeated rule that "when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact 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 said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect." 13 The trial court's assessment deserves great weight, as it had the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying. 14
Given this principle, the Court affirms Samson's conviction, taking into account the trial court's declaration in its judgment that AAA offered a clear, positive and straightforward testimony, barring credence in Samson's mere denial that he was guilty of the charges against him. 15 These findings of the trial court were affirmed by the CA during appeal. Even the Court's own assessment of AAA's testimony reveals her credibility and the integrity of her testimony.
Samson sought to ruin AAA's credibility by citing alleged immoral activities of his daughter, such as living in with her boyfriend despite her young age of 13. He also alleged that AAA was merely persuaded by her maternal relatives to testify wrongly against her father. These matters, nonetheless, fail to adversely affect the credibility of AAA as a witness. Settled is the rule that "(t)he victim's moral character [is] immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of an accused for rape, there being absolutely no nexus between it and the odious deed committed." 16 Moreover, "[m]otives, such as those arising from family feuds, resentment, or revenge have not prevented the Court from giving, if proper, full credence to the testimony of minor complainants who remained consistent throughout their direct and cross-examinations." 17 "[I]t takes 'a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a lifetime of shame. '" 18 "No sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her." 19
Given the credible testimony of AAA and the other pieces of evidence which were presented by the prosecution, Samson was correctly declared guilty of the four counts of rape. AAA was only 11 years old at the time that she was raped in three instances in March 2004 and April 2004. A man commits rape by having carnal knowledge of a child under 12 years of age even in the absence of any of the following circumstances: (a) through force, threat or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) by means of fraudulent machination or gave abuse of authority. 20cCaEDA
AAA was 12 years old when she was again raped by Samson in September 2005. The elements of the crime charged for this fourth rape incident were sufficiently established, particularly: (a) the victim is a female over 12 years but under 18 years of age; (b) the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the victim either through force, threat or intimidation. For this case, it was established that AAA was forcibly taken by Samson to his bedroom, clearly with the intention to again sexually abuse her daughter. AAA was then crying the entire time that she was being raped by her father. 21 The victim's act of crying during the rape was sufficient indication that her offender's act was against her will. Further, the Court held in People v. Fragante: 22
It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. In People v. Orillosa, we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. . . . . 23 (Citations omitted)
Given the foregoing, Samson was correctly sentenced to suffer for each count of rape the penalty of reclusion perpetua, in lieu of death, with the indication that he would not be eligible for parole. 24 Further, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages of which he was declared liable to pay AAA were properly set at P75,000.00, P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, 25 subject to the interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum to be computed from the date of finality of this judgment, until full payment of the monetary awards.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 15, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04755 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 175-190.
2. 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.
3. CA rollo, p. 178.
4. Id. at 36.
5. Id. at 178.
6. Id. at 178-179.
7. Id. at 179-180.
8. Id. at 180.
9. Id. at 181.
10. Issued by Judge Iluminada P. Cabato; id. at 31-53.
11. Id. at 190.
12. Id. at 86.
13. People v. Vilbar, G.R. No. 186541, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 749, 756, citing Decasa v. Court of Appeals, 554 Phil. 160, 180 (2007).
14. People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 753, 761.
15. CA rollo, p. 45.
16. People v. Felan, G.R. No. 176631, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 449, 454.
17. People v. Fragante, G.R. No. 182521, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 566, 581, citing People v. Anguac, 606 Phil. 728, 736 (2009).
18. People v. Felan, supra note 16, at 453-454, citing People v. Javier, 370 Phil. 128, 139 (1999).
19. People v. Padilla, G.R. No. 182917, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 571, 593, citing People v. Bon, 536 Phil. 897, 915 (2006).
20. People v. Pinic, G.R. No. 186395, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 623, 631.
21. CA rollo, pp. 38-39.
22. G.R. No. 182521, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 566.
23. Id. at 579-580.
24. Id. at 581-582.
25. People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 54, 69.