FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 195421. April 23, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROQUE RAY TAMPOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 195421 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plantiff-Appellee, v. ROQUE RAY TAMPOS, Accused-Appellant.
Before Us is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated September 29, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00633-MIN, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated April 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 33 finding herein appellant Roque Ray Tampos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape of his own daughter AAA, 3 as defined under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353.
Evidence for the prosecution presented the following version of events:
AAA is the eldest of eight children by appellant and his common-law wife, BBB. The entire family lived in a small house in Davao City. On December 10, 2001, AAA celebrated her 16th birthday. In the evening of the same day, the family went to sleep, with appellant and BBB together on the bed, AAA under the bed and beside five of her siblings on the floor, and the two remaining siblings on separate hammocks. AAA was awakened as she felt appellant fondling her breasts from his bed. Appellant went down and crawled under the bed, went on top of her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her against her will. AAA did not shout for help because appellant threatened that he would kill her mother and siblings if she made any noise. About three years later, on February 25, 2004, AAA filed a complaint for rape against her father after finding out that he also molested her younger sister, CCC. Dr. Josefa S. Villarin (Villarin), a public physician at the Davao Medical Center (DMC), concducted a physical examination of AAA and found that AAA sustained a hymenal transection at the six o'clock position and laceration at four o'clock and eight o'clock positions.
Appellant denied that he raped his daughter, proffering the alibi that he was working overtime at the construction site of DMC at the time of the alleged incident. Appellant added that AAA filed the rape charge because she was angry at him after he scolded and whipped her for having a boyfriend and not continuing her schooling.
In its Decision dated April 18, 2008, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without benefit of parole. The RTC further ordered appellant to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. ESCTIA
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
There being no merit to his appeal, we affirm appellant's conviction.
As a rule, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and of their testimonies are accorded great respect, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case. 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 them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. 4
We find no cogent reason for us to deviate from foregoing rule in this case. Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals accorded weight and credence to AAA's testimony since it was straightforward and candid. While AAA was hesitant in the beginning to describe the rape, this may be due to her embarrassment at the thought of how her own father sexually abused her. In addition, AAA's testimony was corroborated and bolstered by Dr. Villarin's medical findings that AAA had old injuries to her hymen consistent with penetration by a penis. 5
In contrast, appellant's claim of denial is a weak defense considering that he presented no other evidence to substantiate his claim. Appellant could have presented the testimony of a co-worker, his supervisor, or the timekeeper; or his daily time record or overtime sheet, to lend credence to his claim that he was working overtime at the DMC construction site at the time of AAA's rape. Appellant himself even testified that the DMC construction site is only a few kilometers away from their house such that he could walk to and from it. Thus, even if appellant was working overtime at the DMC construction site on the day and time in question, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.
In People v. Abulon, 6 the Court pronounced:
Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the complainant. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion because it can easily be fabricated. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.
The records disclose that not a shred of evidence was adduced by appellant to corroborate his alibi. Alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, otherwise, it is fatal to the accused. Further, for alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for appellant to be present at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission. By his own testimony, appellant clearly failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the scene of the crime when the rapes were alleged to have occurred. Except for the first incident, appellant was within the vicinity of his home and in fact alleged that he was supposedly even sleeping therein on the occasion of the second and third incidents.
Appellant also argues that he could not have raped AAA under the bed, since the bed was only two feet and two inches above the floor, and without his common-law wife BBB hearing anything even though she was sleeping right beside him on the bed. We are not persuaded. Appellant, other than his bare allegation, failed to adduce evidence to prove that the space under the bed was too small to fit him and AAA. The answer as to why BBB did not hear anything during the time AAA was being raped could be found in AAA's testimony. AAA recounted that appellant crawled under the bed, got on top of her, and raped her silently with minimal movements. AAA also did not shout as appellant, known to have a violent character in the past, threatened to kill her mother and siblings.
AAA's delay in reporting the incident is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Her hesitation may be due to her youth, the moral ascendancy of her ravisher, and the latter's threats against her. 7 Also, as the Court of Appeals found, AAA was motivated to finally reveal the rape, after more than two years of suffering in silence, when she came to know that appellant was also raping her younger sister CCC.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without the eligibility of parole, in lieu of death, under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, in relation to R.A. No. 9346.
Lastly, we likewise affirm the grant of award by the RTC and the Court of Appeals in AAA's favor in the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages, as these amounts are in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. However, we increase the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00, also in conformity with the latest jurisprudence. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum is further imposed on all damages awarded in this case, from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. 8AIaDcH
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated September 29, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00633-MIN, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: increasing the award of exemplary damages to P30,000.00 and imposing interest upon the amounts of indemnity and damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment. No costs.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-14; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Edgardo T. Lloren, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 20-29; penned by Judge Wenceslao E. Ibabao.
3. Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victim's privacy.
4. People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 281.
5. TSN, April 19, 2005, pp. 47-51.
6. 557 Phil. 428, 447-448 (2007).
7. People v. Romero, 435 Phil. 182, 194 (2002).
8. People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 54, 69.