THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198667. June 17, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. EDDIE TOYOKEN Y ANGON, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 17, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198667 (People of the Philippines v. Eddie Toyoken y Angon). — Appellant Eddie Toyoken y Angon (Toyoken) was indicted for rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 62, on October 8, 1998 docketed as Criminal Case 98-CR-3161. 1
AEY, 2 the complainant, testified that on August 25, 1998 at around two o'clock in the afternoon, while she was taking a bath at the female common bathroom of the second floor of Bunkhouse 3 of Antamok Tram, Itogon, Benguet where she resides with her husband and four children, accused Toyoken entered and immediately covered her mouth with his right fist and threatened to stab her if she shouted. Toyoken demanded that she remove her underwear which she had on while taking a bath. AEY refused. Despite her persistent struggling, however, Toyoken succeeded in removing her underwear. While Toyoken was removing his own shirt, AEY attempted to run towards the door but he grabbed her hair and pushed her against the wall. She continued to resist him but he pointed his knife against her lower abdomen while unzipping his pants and drawing out his penis. He succeeded in ravaging her. 3
After Toyoken left the bathroom, AEY came out of the bathroom, and sought help from the security guard on patrol, Dominic Pantuloc, who was in front of the nearby Bunkhouse 2. The latter alerted to the description and clothing of Toyoken, apprehended the accused and brought him to AEY who identified him as her rapist. 4 DHITcS
Toyoken denied the charge against him and invoked the defense of alibi alleging that on the date and time in question, he attended a wake at a house located more or less 30 meters from Bunkhouses 2 and 3. 5 He also stressed that: (a) the environmental conditions of the place, i.e., a common comfort room, made it a highly improbable venue for rape; (b) assuming that he had raped AEY, it was against human nature for him to still stay within the area; and (c) the fact that when he was apprehended, they found no knife on him. 6
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment 7 on March 23, 2004, convicting Toyoken of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua including all accessory penalties imposed by law. The RTC also ordered him to pay the complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages. 8
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed 9 the decision of the trial court with modification as to the award of moral damages to P50,000.00 and exemplary damages to P25,000.00. 10
The appeal lacks merit.
The primordial question in rape cases is the credibility of the complainant's testimony since she alone can testify as to its occurrence. 11 The sole testimony of AEY, recounting the facts and circumstances of her ordeal was sufficiently straightforward, candid, and worthy of belief, 12 contrary to Toyoken's contention that AEY's statements were dubious.
AEY's credibility was strengthened by her conduct immediately following her being raped. She resisted Toyoken and, minutes after the rape, as the accused went down the building, AEY hurriedly went out of the bathroom and cried for help from the first person she saw, who was the guard on patrol. After that, she went to the police station to report the incident and to submit herself to a medical examination of her bodily injuries, including those on her private parts. The medical findings strongly corroborated her testimony that she was forced to submit to sexual intercourse. This Court is convinced that AEY has no ill motive to manufacture such a tale if it were not true. TcDIEH
It is of no moment that the crime was committed at the common female bathroom of the building where AEY lives — this fact does not render her allegations untrue as lust is no respecter of the situs. 13 This Court had already ruled that rape can be committed even on places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises and even in the house where there are other occupants. 14
Having in mind the parameters set forth by this Court in its long line of decisions involving rape, Toyoken's other denials and alibi do not meet the legal standards to prevail over the strength of AEY's testimony. Thus, his guilt was sufficiently proven by the prosecution. As between positive and categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 15
With respect to the civil aspect, the Court respects the award of moral damages made by the CA in the amount of P50,000.00. However, in line with our prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape, we increase the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 for the rape committed. 16
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED and the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01205 dated March 14, 2011 which found accused-appellant Eddie Toyoken y Angon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages in favor of AEY is increased to P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED." cHSTEA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
By:
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.CA rollo, pp. 13-14.
2.Consistent with the ruling of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto, (G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, citing Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children, Sec. 40; Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act 9262, Rule XI, Sec. 63, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act.") the real name and the personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed in this decision.
3.Records, p. 7.
4.TSN, January 19, 1998, pp. 14-15.
5.TSN, April 6, 2000, p. 7.
6.Appellant's Brief, CA rollo, p. 89.
7.Id. at 40-56.
8.Id. at 56.
9.Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Elihu A. Ybañez.
10.Rollo, pp. 3-13.
11.People v. Venturina, G.R. No. 183097, September 12, 2012.
12.Supra note 10, at 8.
13.People v. Laurino, G.R. No. 199264, October 24, 2012.
14.People v. Osma, Jr., G.R. No. 187734, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 428, 441, citing People v. Cabral, G.R. No. 179946, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 160, 165-166.
15.People v. Pansacala, G.R. No. 194255, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 549, 559.
16.People v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013.