FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 188318. February 13, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSELITO SOLOMON y MENDOZA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 13, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 188318 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus JOSELITO SOLOMON y MENDOZA, accused-appellant.
Appellant appeals from the Court of Appeals' Decision 1 of April 30, 2008 affirming the judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 124, of Caloocan City, convicting him of the crime of qualified rape of his 13-year-old daughter, AAA. 3
The prosecution proved the following facts at the trial: AAA was born on July 4, 1989 and was only 13 years old when appellant raped her in the wee hours of morning on September 12, 2002. Around 3 a.m. on the said date, AAA was sleeping with her three younger siblings in their house. Their mother was not with them as the latter was working in Saudi Arabia. AAA awoke when her father suddenly placed himself on top of her. AAA resisted appellant, but he was stronger than her and he held her hands. In full view of AAA's younger sister, BBB, appellant inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. BBB, however, could not do anything to help AAA. After the rape, appellant threatened AAA that he would kill her and her siblings if she reports the incident. AAA later testified that appellant had been raping her for about 40 times since she was 9 years old. 4 SCADIT
In the morning after the rape, AAA and BBB sought the help of barangay officials who brought them to the Social Development Center of the Department of Social Welfare and Development in Caloocan City. The assigned social worker brought them to the police and AAA underwent medical examination. The medical examination revealed that AAA had a deep healing laceration at the 2 o'clock position, a deep healed laceration at the 7 o'clock position, and shallow healed lacerations at the 4 and 9 o'clock positions in the hymen. Dr. Mamerto Sison Bernabe, the medico-legal officer who conducted the medical examination, testified that AAA was in a non-virginal state physically, evidencing penetration of the vaginal canal by a blunt instrument such as an erect male organ. 5
In the face of the prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial. He did not take the witness stand and instead presented CCC, his 14-year-old niece to testify. According to CCC, she and BBB were classmates in Grade 6 and they used to cut classes. Appellant scolded BBB when he learned that she was not going to her classes. CCC claimed that she and BBB met with AAA, and together they reported to the barangay officials that appellant raped AAA and hurt BBB. According to CCC, AAA agreed to the plan for they thought that appellant would only be jailed for just a few days. CCC added that appellant already knew that AAA had a boyfriend. 6
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties. He was also ordered to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as moral damages. The RTC found that the negative testimonies presented by the defense cannot prevail over AAA's positive and categorical assertions that appellant raped her. Moreover, AAA's testimony was corroborated by medical findings. 7 The Court of Appeals (CA), as aforesaid, affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the monetary damages awarded by the RTC by increasing the moral damages to P75,000 and awarding an additional P75,000 as civil indemnity and P25,000 as exemplary damages since the case involves qualified rape. 8 Aggrieved, appellant filed this appeal, where appellant essentially calls for a reassessment of the credibility of AAA. cDCEIA
We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. There is no showing that either the RTC or the CA committed any error in law and in its findings of fact especially as to AAA's credibility. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses, especially since AAA's testimony meets the test of credibility. 9 The Court notes that other than his claim of denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. On the contrary, the RTC and CA found that AAA's testimony was clear and convincing. The medical findings support AAA's testimony. Appellant also failed to prove that AAA was impelled by any bad motive to testify against him. The subsequent recantation made by BBB cannot benefit appellant since the statements she made before the barangay officials, social worker, and the police all constitute res gestae as they were made spontaneously and very soon after she witnessed appellant raping AAA.
However, a modification is called for as regards the award of damages. Following recent jurisprudence on the award of exemplary damages in qualified rape cases, the award of P25,000 as exemplary damages should be increased to P30,000. 10 The Court also considers it proper to impose interest on the civil indemnities, moral damages and exemplary damages being awarded in this case considering that there has been delay in the recovery. The imposition is hereby declared to be also a natural and probable consequence of the acts of the accused complained of. The interest imposed is the legal rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this judgment until fully paid. 11
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The April 30, 2008 Court of Appeals' Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02604 affirming the conviction of appellant Joselito Solomon y Mendoza for the crime of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the exemplary damages is increased to P30,000. Furthermore, appellant is ordered to pay interest of 6% per annum on all the damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
With costs against the appellant. DTSIEc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-11. Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
2.CA rollo, pp. 18-27. Penned by Judge Victoria Isabel A. Paredes (now Court of Appeals Justice).
3.The victim's real name is withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id. at 4-5.
6.Id. at 6.
7.CA rollo, pp. 26-27.
8.Rollo, pp. 10-11.
9.See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
10.People v. Masagca, Jr., G.R. No. 184922, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 278, 287; People v. Rocabo, G.R. No. 193482, March 2, 2011, 644 SCRA 508, 515.
11.People v. Taguibuya, G.R. No. 180497, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 685, 693-694.