FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197812. February 13, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEX TURLA y MACASPAC a.k.a. PINGAS, 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. 197812 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus ALEX TURLA y MACASPAC a.k.a. PINGAS, accused-appellant.
On appeal is the October 12, 2010 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the judgment 2 of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, of Lagawe, Ifugao, finding appellant guilty of the crime of rape of AAA, 3 who was only twelve years old when the crime was committed.
Briefly, the prosecution proved the following facts: In the late afternoon of September 20, 2006, AAA and her friend BBB were watching a billiard game in the house of Pablito Ahingwa, when they were approached by appellant and Roel Biniahan. The two men were having a drinking session in the store in the house and the girls noticed that the two reeked of alcohol. Thus, the girls decided to leave but appellant and Roel followed them. When the two girls tried to run away, appellant chased AAA and caught up with her while Roel chased BBB who was able to get away. Thereafter, appellant brought AAA to Roel's house and carried her to the second floor while Roel slept downstairs in the sala. Inside a room on the second floor, appellant pushed AAA onto the bed and went on top of her. Appellant removed both his pants and underwear and those of AAA. Then, he pulled AAA's legs apart and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain and struggled against appellant but to no avail. She also tried to shout but appellant choked her neck. Appellant then made push and pull movements until she felt fluid coming out of his penis. 4 cIECaS
After satisfying his lust, appellant put on his pants and warned AAA not to tell anyone what happened otherwise something bad would happen to her. AAA put her pants on then went home. After a few days, AAA revealed to her uncle what appellant did to her. Her uncle immediately told AAA's mother, and the latter accompanied AAA to Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Hilda G. Kimakim, who conducted a general medical examination on AAA. Dr. Kimakim found that AAA's hymen was not intact and there were healing vaginal lacerations at the 4 and 9 o'clock positions. A foul smell was also emanating from her vagina. 5
In the face of the prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial. He denies knowing AAA and Roel, and claims that during the alleged rape he was at his place planting potatoes and cabbages with his common-law wife Helen Bello. According to Helen, they never leave their house except on Sundays for church mass. 6
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 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 civil indemnity. 7 On appeal, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the monetary damages awarded by the RTC by further awarding AAA P50,000 as moral damages. 8 DCHIAS
After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court affirms the decision of the CA. 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 in this case 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 this Court's own review of the records leads it to conclude that 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 the CA found that AAA's testimony was candid, straightforward, and credible. She was able to recount in a categorical and consistent manner how she was chased and raped by appellant. AAA unwaveringly and positively identified appellant as the one who raped her. This identification was corroborated by Roel who testified that he saw appellant carrying AAA to the second floor. Moreover, AAA's testimony was bolstered by the findings in the medical examination conducted on her. There was no showing that AAA was impelled by any bad and improper motive to testify against appellant.
However, as regards the amount of damages a modification is called for. In consonance with prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape, P30,000 as exemplary damages is awarded in order to set a public example and to protect hapless individuals from sexual molestation. 10 The Court also considers it proper to impose interest on the civil indemnity, 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 October 12, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03984 affirming appellant Alex Turla y Macaspac's conviction for rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In addition to civil indemnity and moral damages, appellant is likewise ordered to pay AAA an additional P30,000 as exemplary damages. The Court likewise hereby imposes interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ruben C. Ayson concurring.
2.CA rollo, pp. 22-29. Penned by Judge Joseph P. Baguilat.
3.The victim's real name is withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).
4.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
5.Id. at 5.
6.Id. at 6.
7.CA rollo, p. 29.
8.Rollo, p. 14.
9.See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
10.See People v. Bayrante, G.R. No. 188978, June 13, 2012, p. 19, citing People v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 182412, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 385, 392 and People v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 185206, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 437, 450.
11.People v. Taguibuya, G.R. No. 180497, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 685, 693-694.