THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - ELMER PERALTA y Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 187531
Present: CARPIO MORALES, J.,* CHICO-NAZARIO,**
Acting Chairperson, NACHURA,
PERALTA,
and Promulgated: October
16, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
For final review by the Court is the
trial court’s conviction of appellant Elmer Peralta y Hidalgo for statutory
rape. In the November 27, 2008 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02772, the appellate court, on
intermediate review, affirmed in toto
the February 13, 2007 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30 of San Fernando City, La Union in
Criminal Case No. 6789.
As found by both the trial and the
appellate courts, the rape incident transpired during the wake of the victim’s
late grandmother. It was around 8 p.m.
on January 2, 2005 when the victim, then a six-year-old lass, on her way to the
restroom, saw appellant, a guest in the wake. Appellant asked the young girl to
accompany him in buying something from the nearby store. He, however, brought
the girl to a grassy area where he carried out his bestial act. Expectedly, the
hapless child felt pain in her genitals and protested the intrusion, but her
resistance proved futile. After appellant was done molesting her, he threatened
the girl that he would beat up her parents if she uttered a word about the
incident.[3]
The child, with tears in her eyes,
rushed home to her parents. When asked about what had happened, she remained
mum. The girl, nevertheless, eventually narrated her harrowing ordeal to her
parents after her mother, who was to put her to bed, discovered bloodstains on
her underwear. Shocked and infuriated, her father sought the help of the
authorities and proceeded to the house of appellant, where the latter was
apprehended.[4]
The medical examination of the child
revealed that her hymen was gaping with a laceration at the 11 o’clock position
and with minimal bleeding. Her cervix could further admit the examining finger
with ease, a finding unusual for a child of tender years.[5]
An Information[6]
for rape was consequently filed with the trial court on January 11, 2005,
pertinently stating the following:
That on or about the 2nd day of
January, 2005 in the City of San Fernando (La Union), Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd
design and by means of force, violence and intimidation did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the offended
party [name omitted], minor six (6) years of age against her will, to the
damage and prejudice of said [name omitted].
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
For his defense, appellant relied on
denial and alibi, contending in the main that he was on a drinking spree near
the place of the wake but he eventually went home at 7 p.m.[8]
After trial on the merits, the RTC
rendered its February 13, 2007 Decision,[9]
convicting the appellant of statutory rape. The court lent credence to the firm
and straightforward testimony of the victim and to her positive identification
of appellant as the perpetrator of the bestial act. The dispositive portion of
the trial court’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court
hereby finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
statutory rape and sentences him to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua
and orders him to pay the complainant FIFTY THOUSAND (Php 50,000.00) PESOS as
civil indemnity and another FIFTY THOUSAND (Php 50,000.00) PESOS as moral
damages. With costs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
On intermediate review, the CA, in
its November 27, 2008 Decision,[11]
affirmed in toto the decision of the
trial court. Thus, the Court now finally reviews the trial court’s and the
appellate court’s uniform findings.
The Court affirms appellant’s
conviction.
Three principles guide the courts in
resolving rape cases: (1) an accusation for rape can be made
with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused,
though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime
of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3)
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.[12]
In a determination of guilt for the
crime of rape, primordial is the credibility of complainant’s testimony, because,
in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the
victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things.[13] This
eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting
to her non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges.[14]
In
the instant case, the victim testified that she was raped and identified the
appellant as the one who maligned her. Her narration was further supported by
medical findings, coupled by the testimony of the examining physician, with
regard to her non-virgin state. Of note moreover is that the trial court, which
had the undisputed vantage in the evaluation and appreciation of testimonial
evidence, found the victim’s narration of her painful ordeal as clear,
categorical, straightforward, sincere, and truthful.[15]
Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that the findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and are
not to be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the
trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied facts or circumstances of
weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.[16]
Appellant’s defenses of denial and
alibi cannot also demolish the victim’s clear and convincing narration and
positive identification of her assailant. Denial and alibi are disfavored on
account of the facility with which they can be concocted to suit the defense of
an accused.[17] In this
case, appellant has not even shown that it was physically impossible for him to
have been at the crime scene.
As provided for in the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory
rape. The two elements of the crime are: (1) that the accused
had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of
age.[18]
In the instant case, the first element has been satisfied by the testimony of
the victim as explained above; and the second, by her birth certificate
presented during the trial, showing that she was born on November 7, 1998.[19] Further, a qualifying circumstance is present
in this case, which will raise the nature of the crime to a higher category, i.e., the victim was a child below seven
(7) years old. The presence of the foregoing qualifying circumstance raised the
crime of statutory rape to qualified rape.[20]
Hence, the Court finds the appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape. The imposable
penalty under the RPC for the said crime is death. However, following Republic Act No. 9346,[21]
in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole is imposed.
With regard to the damages awarded by
the trial court, the Court finds the same to be deficient. Following settled
jurisprudence, the Court orders the appellant to pay the victim civil indemnity
of P75,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00, and moral damages
of P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[22]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the November 27, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02772, affirming the February 13, 2007 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, of San Fernando City, La Union in Criminal
Case No. 6789, is likewise AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the appellant is found guilty of the crime of
qualified rape; (2) the appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusión perpetua without eligibility for parole; and (3) the appellant is
ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages
of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice Acting
Chairperson |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson, Third Division
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 Acting 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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
* Additional member vice Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Special Order No. 744 dated October 13, 2009.
** Acting Chairperson vice Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Special Order No. 743 dated October 13, 2009.
*** Additional member vice Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Special Order No. 753 dated October 13, 2009.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok (retired), with Associate Justices Mariano C. del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Romeo F. Barza, concurring; rollo, pp.2-8.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 52-61.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Supra note 2.
[10] CA rollo, p. 61.
[11] Supra note 1.
[12] People v. Glivano, G.R. No. 177565, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 656, 662; citing People v. Malones, 425 SCRA 318, 329.
[13] People v. Pascua, G.R. No. 151858, November 27, 2003, 416 SCRA 548, 552.
[14] People v. Oden, G.R. Nos. 155511-22, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 634, 655.
[15] CA rollo, p. 58.
[16] People v. Sta. Ana, G.R. Nos. 115657-59, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 188, 202.
[17] People v. Alvarez, G.R. Nos. 140388-91, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 523, 530.
[18] People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 179030, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 423, 430.
[19] CA rollo, p. 97.
[20] People v. Gloria, G.R. No. 168476, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 742, 756.
[21] Entitled “An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the
[22] People of the Philippines v. Adelado Anguac y Ragadao, G.R. No. 176744, June 5, 2009; People v. Glivano, supra note 12, at 665; People v. Gloria, supra note 20, at 756; People v. Audine, G.R. No. 168649, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 531, 553; People v. Cayabyab, G.R. No. 167147, August 3, 2005, 465 SCRA 681, 693; People v. Alfaro, 458 Phil. 942, 963 (2003).