SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219882. August 22, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODY SOLON y DEOGRACIAS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219882: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODY SOLON y DEOGRACIAS
In two (2) Informations, accused-appellant Rody Solon y Deogracias was charged with the crimes of rape and child abuse of an 11-year-old girl, identified as AAA:
Criminal Case No. 8377(CHILD ABUSE)
That on the 28th day of November 2005, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness, a form of sexual abuse, upon the person of AAA, a minor, eleven (11) years of age, by then and there kissing her lips, neck and breast, against her will and consent, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 8378(RAPE)
That on the 28th day of November 2005 in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, a minor, eleven (11) years of age, against her will and consent, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
Three (3) witnesses testified for the prosecution: first, private complainant AAA; second, AAA's mother BBB; and third, Medico-Legal Officer PCI Joseph C. Palmero. 2
As the prosecution recounted, on November 28, 2005, at around 6:00 p.m., AAA, then 11 years old, was at the house of accused-appellant (who was 25 years old) located at No. 014 Tubo Maly, San Mateo, Rizal and was playing with accused-appellant's niece Ellaisa and nephew Angelo. 3 Accused-appellant used to work as a helper for the business of AAA's mother. 4 After playing, AAA stayed at accused-appellant's house. 5
Accused-appellant then called AAA and instructed her to go with him to the second floor of the house. 6 He asked AAA to remove her clothes and lie down. 7 When AAA refused, he undressed her and forced her to lie down on the floor. 8 He removed AAA's clothes and went on top of her. 9 Accused-appellant started kissing her lips and neck. 10 After, he inserted his penis into her vagina. 11 When done, he got dressed and instructed AAA to go home and not tell anyone about what happened. 12
The next day, AAA's mother, BBB, came to know about the incident through the victim's sister, CCC, who witnessed the incident when she peeped inside the room where accused-appellant allegedly raped AAA. 13 BBB brought AAA to the barangay and the police station to report the rape of her daughter. 14
On November 30, 2005, AAA was personally examined by Medico-Legal Officer PCI Joseph C. Palmero who issued the corresponding Medico-Legal Report showing that the victim "had (+) hymenal notch at the 9 o'clock position." 15
Three (3) witnesses testified for the defense: first, accused-appellant; second, his niece Ellaisa Marie Mondragon; and third, his mother Guillerma Solon. 16
Accused-appellant alleged that on November 28, 2005, he was helping his mother in their pigpen, which is located just outside their house, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 17 He also imputed ill motive to AAA's mother, BBB, because he left his work as a helper of BBB. 18
Ellaisa Marie Mondragon testified that on November 28, 2005, at around 6:00 p.m., she was inside their house playing with his brother and AAA. 19 At around the same time, accused-appellant was at the pigpen with her grandmother, Guillerma Solon. 20 She saw accused-appellant cleaning the piglets. 21 After playing, AAA went home. 22 TIADCc
Guillerma Solon testified that on November 28, 2005, at around 6:00 p.m., she was with accused-appellant preparing for the delivery of their pig. 23 They were at the pigpen from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 24 She added that in 2005, their house had no second floor. It was only in 2006 when they added another floor to their home. 25
In the Decision 26 dated July 5, 2012, the Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. However, it acquitted him of the charge of child abuse, explaining that this was absorbed in the crime of rape. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 8377, ACQUITTING accused Rody Solon y Deogracias since the crime is absorbed in Criminal Case No. 8378.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 8378, finding accused Rody Solon y Deogracias GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape (violation of Article 266-A, 1st paragraph of RPC as amended by RA 8353 and in further relation to Section 5(a) of RA 8369) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the victim, [AAA], the amount of fifty thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; fifty thousand Pesos (50,000.00) as moral damages; and, fifty thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages.
Accused Rody Solon y Deogracias is hereby ordered committed to the National Bilibid [Prison] in Muntinlupa City for service of sentence.
The accused is to be credited for the time spent for his preventive detention in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 6127 and E.O. 214.
SO ORDERED. 27 (Emphasis in the original)
Accused-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals.
In the Decision 28 dated July 25, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The the [sic] Decision dated July 5, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 29 (Emphasis in the original)
On August 18, 2014, Solon filed his Notice of Appeal. 30
In the Resolution 31 dated October 19, 2015, this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they could file their supplemental briefs.
On January 11, 2016, the Public Attorney's Office filed a Supplemental Brief 32 on behalf of accused-appellant.
On February 20, 2015, the Office of Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion 33 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief on behalf of the People of the Philippines, and that it was, instead, adopting the Appellee's Brief 34 filed before the Court of Appeals.
For resolution is the sole issue of whether accused-appellant Rody Solon y Deogracias is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
A careful examination of the records shows that there is nothing that would warrant a reversal of the Decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. All the elements of rape under Article 266-A 35 of the Revised Penal Code are present. Private complainant AAA narrated the incident in a clear and straightforward manner, thus:
Q When you had gone upstairs of that house, what transpired if anything had happened?
A He asked me to remove my clothes, sir.
Q When he asked you that, what did you do if you had done anything?
A He asked me to lie down, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q . . . You were being asked to undress and you refused to be undressed?
A He undressed me, sir.
Q What clothes were you wearing then?
A Shorts, sir.
Q And upper garment, what were you wearing then?
A Sando, sir.
Q If you are referring to a sando, you are referring to a shirt without sleeves?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you said that he removed your clothes?
A Yes, sir.
Q What clothes did he remove?
A Shorts, sir.
Q And what undergarment did you wear under your shorts, if there was any?
A Panty, sir. AIDSTE
Q And when he removed your shorts, what happened to your panty?
A He removed my panty together with my shorts, sir.
Q What you are saying is that, your shorts and your panty were removed simultaneously?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your reaction when he was doing that?
A Nagulat po ako, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What did you feel at that time aside from being surprised?
A I was just surprised, sir.
Q After that, what transpired next?
A I was already lying and he went on top of me, sir.
Q Thereafter, what happened next if anything had happened, Ms. Witness?
A He was kissing my lips and my neck, sir.
Q When he was doing that, what did you feel if you had felt anything?
A None, sir.
Q When you say "none", what do you mean by that word?
A I do not like what he was doing, sir.
Q Thereafter, what happened next after that?
A He did not stop yet, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Aside from kissing you, what else was he doing, if he was doing anything?
A He was inserting his penis, sir.
Q Where?
A Into my vagina, sir.
COURT:
Q How did you know that it was his penis he was inserting?
A He was also naked at that time, ma'am.
PROS. GONZALES:
Q You said that he had gone upstairs along with you. At what point in time did he become naked, Ms. Witness?
A When he undressed me, he undressed himself also, sir.
Q Which transpired first, you being undressed or he removing his clothings [sic]?
A Undressing me, sir.
Q Now, you said that he had also inserted his private part or his penis on your private part?
A Yes, sir.
Q When he did that, what did you feel if you had felt anything?
A I was hurt, sir.
Q What part of your body was hurting?
A My vagina, sir.
Q You said that he was trying to insert his penis into your private part, how long did that last?
A It did not take long, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Why were you not able to do anything?
A Hindi ko po kaya, sir.
Q You said that he had gone on top of you. On what part of the bed were you and the accused then at the time?
A Only on the floor, sir.
Q Meaning to say that you were lied [sic] down on the floor?
A Yes, sir. 36
It is settled that "factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the trial court is shown to have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance." 37 The Regional Trial Court gave full credence to AAA's testimony after finding her answers to the questions both on direct and cross-examination to be candid and unwavering.
Accused-appellant's claim that AAA's testimony was unbelievable because the second floor of their house was only constructed in 2006 does not suffice to acquit accused-appellant. The defense failed to specify when exactly in 2006 a second floor was added to the house. The rape with which accused-appellant is charged was alleged to have happened on November 28, 2005, close to when 2005 was ending and transitioning into the new year, 2006. Moreover, construction of a second floor could have begun, and an unfinished or unfurnished second floor could have already been existent even before 2006. AaCTcI
Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape. 38 An inconsistency that has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused. 39 Thus, in People v. Lagbo, 40 where there was an inconsistency in the place of commission of the crime, this Court still convicted the accused in view of the child-victim's categorical and straightforward narration of how she was abused. 41 Inconsistencies are to be expected from a minor victim like the private complainant. 42
As against the prosecution's evidence, all that accused-appellant offered in defense were denial and alibi. It has been consistently held that bare denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses because they are self-serving and easy to fabricate. 43 Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the witness, prevails over the defense of denial. 44 Furthermore, for alibi to proper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of commission. 45 In this case, accused-appellant alleged that he was at the pigpen located just outside their house. This did not render it impossible for him to go inside their house and rape AAA.
Accused-appellant's appeal must, therefore, be dismissed for his failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the challenged Decision warranting the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Due to the heinousness of the crime, as well as the depravity of the offense in that accused-appellant raped an 11-year-old girl, and in accordance with People v. Jugueta, 46 where this Court increased the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, we exercise our judicial prerogative and increase the damages to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. 47
WHEREFORE, this Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06128 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Rody Solon y Deogracias is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ORDERED to pay AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, at pp. 59-59-A, Regional Trial Court Decision.
2. Rollo, p. 4, Court of Appeals Decision.
3. Id. at 4-5.
4. Id. at 5.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 6.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Id.
26. CA rollo, pp. 59-66. The Decision was penned by Judge Josephine Zarate Fernandez of Branch 76, Regional Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal.
27. Id. at 65-66.
28. Rollo, pp. 2-18. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Danton Q. Bueser of the Second Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
29. Id. at 17-18.
30. Id. 19-21.
31. Id. at 25.
32. Id. at 26-35.
33. Id. at 36-39.
34. CA rollo, pp. 70-85.
35. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-A provides:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is Committed —
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
36. Rollo, pp. 10-13.
37. People v. De Jesus, 695 Phil. 114, 122 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
38. People v. Lagbo, G.R. No. 207535, February 10, 2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/february2016/207535.pdf> 6 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
39. People v. Mahinay, 462 Phil. 53, 69 (2003) [Per J. Callejo, Second Division].
40. G.R. No. 207535, February 10, 2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/february2016/207535.pdf> [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
41. Id. at 10.
42. People v. Buban, 541 Phil. 482, 497 (2007) [Per J. Velasco Jr., En Banc].
43. People v. Castro, 653 Phil. 471, 483 (2010) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
44. People v. Combate, 653 Phil. 487, 503 (2010) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., First Division].
45. People v. Mosquerra, 414 Phil. 740, 749 (2001) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division].
46. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/april2016/202124.pdf> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
47. Id. at 29-30.