Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR,
NACHURA,
and
PERALTA,
JJ.
FELIX WASIT, Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
July 23, 2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the Decision dated
The Facts
In
an Information dated
That in the early morning of November 5, 1997, at Barangay [XXX], Municipality of Kayapa, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, taking advantage of superior strength and with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [13 year old AAA[1]] against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Wasit entered a plea of “not guilty plea” upon arraignment.
During
trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: AAA, the private
complainant, her boardmates Alma Bato and Bensa Tipang, Dr. Christopher
Magallanes, and rebuttal witness Felicidad E. Lasaten.
The
prosecution’s evidence established the following facts:
On
Meanwhile,
Bato, who was occupying a room downstairs, was awakened by the commotion
upstairs. She testified hearing AAA shout “Satanas
ka Felix (You are Satan Felix.).” Afterwards, AAA confided to Bato that she
had been raped by Wasit.
Tipang,
another boarder occupying a room at the ground floor, heard AAA’s footsteps
while heading toward Nieves’ room. Tipang heard Wasit uttered the following
line: “Stop, that’s enough it’s my fault.” She was certain that the voice she
heard was that of Wasit since he was the lone male boarder on the second floor.[3]
The
next day, AAA told her teacher, Marcela Barrino, about the incident. After
spending the night at Barrino’s place, AAA retrieved her belongings from the
Wasit boarding house accompanied by her friend Agnes Langpawan. A few days
later, AAA’s newly-arrived uncle brought her to the
The
medical examination conducted by Dr. Magallanes on
Apart from Wasit, the defense presented Nieves, Dionisio Wasit, and Felicidad Wasit as witnesses.
Wasit
testified being single and a gardener. From November 1 to
The police came on
Wasit’s
siblings, Nieves and Dionisio, corroborated his testimony.[7]
After trial, the RTC rendered
judgment finding Wasit guilty of the crime of rape, the fallo of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused Felix Wasit GUILTY of the crime of Rape defined and penalized under Art. 266-A and Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and accordingly sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the costs. He is also ordered to pay the offended party the sums of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, fifty thousand pesos (P50,000,00) as moral damages, and twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Wasit
appealed the RTC Decision to this Court. On
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DENIED
and the questioned Decision dated
SO
ORDERED.
On
On
The issues before us are as follows:
I
THE TRIAL COURT [AND THE CA] GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES
II
THE TRIAL COURT [AND THE CA] GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Wasit
in fine questions in this recourse the credibility of the prosecution’s
witnesses and the adequacy of its evidence. First off, he argues that it is not
believable and contrary to common experience for him to insert his finger in
AAA’s vagina after he had already succeeded in inserting his penis. He found it
illogical for AAA not to have awakened while somebody was undressing her.
He likewise dismisses, as incredible,
the testimony of prosecution witness Tipang, who recounted that she heard AAA’s
footsteps while AAA was on her way to Nieves’ room. He asserts that it was
unbelievable for Tipang, who was occupying a room at the ground floor, to have
heard footsteps sounds coming from another floor.
The Court’s Ruling
We affirm Wasit’s conviction.
What
we are being called to review in this appeal are issues that are
inconsequential and with little bearing on the finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. In a prosecution for rape, the
credibility of the complaining victim is the single most important issue.[11]
An accused’s conviction or acquittal depends on the credibility of
prosecution’s witnesses, most especially that of the private complainant, and
her candor, sincerity, and like virtues play a very significant role in the
disposition of the case. If, in the
eyes, heart, and mind of the trial court, a complainant’s testimony meets the
test of credibility, then the accused may be convicted solely on that basis.[12]
As
found in the affirmed decision of the trial court, AAA’s testimony as to being
at the receiving end of Wasit’s beastly act of molestation was positive and
credible. To quote the trial court:
The court used not only its ears but also its eyes to receive the evidence to determine whether there were telltale signs that the complaining witness was lying. When she left the witness stand, the court was convinced that she had told the truth. She had spoken softly with some natural sincerity that was convincing. The court had not perceived anything in her manner of testimony, gesture, hesitation and the like by which it could be said that the witness testified falsely. She spoke in a firm, straight-forward and candid manner. Her testimony rang true: it was simple without being hysterical or histrionic. She was able to control her emotions during her testimony but it was clear to the Court that she was distraught, bravely trying to hold back her tears. But, later, her efforts failed and she quietly sobbed.[13]
Just like the appellate court, the
Court loathes to disturb the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility
having had the opportunity to observe her behavior on the witness box. When the
victim is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her
account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but
also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she
testified is not true.[14]
The
manner or order by which AAA narrated the rape incident is not material as long
as the elements[15] of the
offense are shown to exist. What is more, as the People countered in its Brief,
some people sleep more deeply than others. Other factors explaining her deep
slumber may also have been at play for AAA not to awaken at the initial stage
of the sexual assault, such as over-fatigue and Wasit’s cautiousness in
undressing her. AAA’s claim that she was
not roused from her slumber when Wasit removed her undergarment does not dent
her credibility.
Contrary
to Wasit’s contention, it was likewise not improbable that the people at the
ground floor of the boarding house could hear footsteps on the second floor. It
is logical that one familiar with all the boarders would be likewise familiar
with how each one moves about in the house. It is also not impossible to hear
someone’s footsteps especially at
It cannot be over-emphasized that the
credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor
inconsistencies in her testimony. Such inconsistencies are inconsequential when
they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of
the commission of the crime––carnal knowledge through force and intimidation.
The alleged inconsistencies refer to minor details and are evidently beyond the
essential fact of the commission of rape because they do not pertain to the
actual sexual assault itself––that very moment when Wasit was forcing himself
on AAA.[16] A weeping AAA had pointed to Wasit as the very
person who defiled her.
In contrast, Wasit simply denied the
accusation against him, claiming to
have gone to bed at
We, thus, affirm the trial court’s
assessment of the testimonial evidence. First, the evaluation of the
witnesses’ credibility is, to repeat, a matter best left to the trial court
because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor
during the trial. Thus, the Court
accords great respect to the trial court’s findings, unless it overlooked or
misconstrued some facts of substance which could have affected the outcome of
the case.[18] This
rule finds an even more stringent application where the appellate court sustains
the trial court’s factual determination,[19]
as here.
Second, we have long adhered to the rule
that the testimony of a minor rape victim is given full weight and credence as
no young woman would plausibly concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination
of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a
public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice
for the wrong committed against her.
Youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[20]
Third, jurisprudence teaches that between
categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on
the other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the
accused, when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part
of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[21]
In the instant case, considering that alibis are easy to fabricate with the aid
of immediate family members or relatives, they assume no importance in the face
of positive identification by the victim herself.[22]
In
sum, the purported flaws in the prosecution’s testimonial evidence do not have
any negative effect on the credibility of its witnesses. There are no material
inconsistencies that merit a reversal of Wasit’s conviction.
As
to Wasit’s pecuniary liability, we increase the award of exemplary damages to
PhP 30,000 in line without our holding in People v. Sia.[23]
We affirm the award of the other
damages in the amount set forth in the appealed decision.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.
The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR- H.C. No. 01451 finding accused-appellant Felix
Wasit guilty of the crime of rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that the exemplary damages he is ordered to pay is increased to Php 30,000.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] The name and personal circumstances of the victim and her immediate family are withheld per RAs 7610 and 9262; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[10] Rollo, pp. 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Vicente Q. Roxas.
[12] People v.
Magbanua, G.R. No. 176265,
April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 698, 705; citing People v. De Guzman y Pascual,
G.R. No. 124368, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA 269, 280.
[13] CA rollo p. 22.
[15] Revised Penal Code, Art. 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 is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
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; x x x
[16] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177572,
[17] CA rollo, p. 23.
[18] People v. Montinola, G.R. No. 178061,
[19] People v. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 511, 524; citing People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547.
[20] Opong, supra note 11, at 722.
[21] People v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 363, 378; citing People v. Tagana, 468 Phil. 784, 807 (2004).
[22] People v. Mangompit, Jr., G.R. Nos. 139962-66,