SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 258177. April 20, 2022.]
HINANE PUNAY y LACSON, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 April 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 258177 (Hinane Punay y Lacson vs. People of the Philippines). — After a review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition 1 for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its Decision 2 dated 24 July 2020 and Resolution 3 dated 17 November 2021, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner Hinane Punay y Lacson (petitioner) would have the Court re-examine the evidence on record. However, petitions brought under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court pertain only to questions of law and not to factual issues. The Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the Court's function to examine, review or evaluate the evidence all over again. Issues raised before the Court on whether the prosecution's evidence proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt 4 or whether a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is required 5 are questions of fact. The issues raised by petitioner reveal that they are questions of fact which would involve a scrutiny of the evidence presented. As a rule, questions of fact cannot be entertained by the Court under Rule 45. Hence, the Petition is procedurally infirm. 6
The minor victim's recollection of what petitioner did to her was clear, straightforward, and categorical. Her testimony was without any tinge of hesitation and was corroborated by her mother. She remained uncompromising and steadfast in her narration of facts and was able to positively identify petitioner as her sexual assailant. Given the positive identification of petitioner, his defense of denial must fail. Time and again, it has been held that denial is an inherently weak defense that cannot outweigh positive testimony. A categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth prevails over a bare denial, which can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. 7
Petitioner was correctly sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to pay private complainant civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 each, which shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 31 (f), 8 Article XII of Republic Act No. 7610, 9 petitioner shall pay a fine in the amount of P15,000.00. 10
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 24 July 2020 and Resolution dated 17 November 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41537 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner is also ordered to pay a fine of P15,000.00 with an interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-30.
2.Id. at 32-40; penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
3.Id. at 43-45; penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon and concurred in by Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
4.Cedeño v. People, 820 Phil. 575, 600 (2017).
5. See Cabaron v. People, 618 Phil. 1, 7-9 (2009).
6.Macad v. People, 838 Phil. 102, 118 (2018).
7.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, 02 March 2020.
8. SECTION 31. Common Penal Provisions. —
(f) A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.
9. Entitled "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes," approved on 17 June 1992.
10.People v. VVV, G.R. No. 230222, 22 June 2020.