THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF
THE
Appellee,
Present:
*CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson,
**BRION, Acting
Chairperson,
BERSAMIN,
-
versus - ***ABAD,
VILLARAMA,
JR., and
SERENO,
JJ.
Promulgated:
EVILIO MILAGROSA, February 21, 2011
Appellant.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I ON
BRION, J.:
We
decide in this Resolution the appeal filed by appellant Evilio Milagrosa from the
November 27, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02777.
On
Evilio was
charged with the crime of rape. He argues that he could not have carried AAA to
the grassy area as she insisted; it was
The
prosecution presented AAA as its sole witness. AAA testified that she had known
Evilio for a long time as he was a friend of her father. She added that their
house is in an isolated place; from there, she cannot even see the house of
their nearest neighbor.[4]
After
trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 63, Calauag, Quezon, found AAA’s testimony credible, and convicted
Evilio of the crime of rape. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.[5]
On appeal, the
CA ruled that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s
guilt. It found that the positive and competent testimony of AAA was enough to
convict Evilio. The CA also reasoned that it was not altogether impossible for
Evilio to forcibly carry AAA to the grassy area. Evilio, although 55 years old,
was not old or weak; he was then still working as a carpenter. A carpenter’s
job is physical and Evilio had the required physical strength to overpower a 16-year
old girl. Neither could AAA be faulted for not grabbing and using Evilio’s balisong as she did not have the maturity
for this kind of reaction and any physical resistance she could have offered would
not have been effective. Her screaming, given the remote location of their
house, could not have attracted the attention of their nearest neighbors. The
CA, thus, affirmed the findings of the lower court.[6] Hence, the recourse to
this Court for a final review.
We affirm the appellant’s guilt.
We find no reason to disturb the findings of the
RTC that the CA wholly affirmed. It is well settled that an accused may be
convicted of rape based solely on the testimony
of the victim, as long as she is
competent and credible. The unique nature of the crime of rape (which is usually
committed in a private place where only the perpetrator and the rape victim are
present)[7]
allows this evidentiary approach and the conclusion the lower courts reached.
We
note that the conduct of the trial and the findings of the trial court indicate
no irregularity or grave abuse of discretion to warrant any suspicion about the
validity of its findings and conclusions. Time and again, we have held, on the
issue of credibility of the victim or of the prosecution witnesses, that the
findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect; generally,
appellate courts do not overturn these findings unless the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight
and substance that can alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the
case.[8] In this case, we see no
reason to alter the findings of the RTC and the affirmation the CA accorded
these findings.
The defense
of alibi, presented with no
corroborating evidence, also deserves scant consideration. We note in this
regards that no record or any witness attesting to the presence of the accused at
P30,000.00 on account of
the moral corruption, perversity and wickedness of the accused, who is 55 years
old, in sexually assaulting a 16-year old girl.
WHEREFORE, the P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
(ON WELLNESS LEAVE)
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. MARIA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
* On Wellness Leave.
** Designated
Acting Chairperson of the Third Division effective
***
Additional Member per Special Order No. 926 dated
[1] CA rollo, p. 60.
[2]
People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[3]
TSN,
[4]
TSN,
[5] Penned by Judge Mariano Morales, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 59-69.
[6] Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres Reyes, Jr. and Sesinando Villon; CA rollo, pp. 97-108.
[7] People v. Guambor, G.R. No. 152183,
[8] People v. Blancaflor, G.R. No. 130586,
[9] People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 181806,