Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > February 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 171652 : February 12, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, V ARSENIO MANGAOANG, SR. Y PASCUA, APPELLANT.:

Quoted hereunder; for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 12, 2008

G.R. No. 171652 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, v ARSENIO MANGAOANG, SR. y PASCUA, appellant.

Arsenio Mangaoang, Sr. y Pascua. appellant, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court. Branch 138, Makati City of the crime of rape committed against AAA, his 20-year old mentally retarded daughter.  He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death and to indemnify AAA the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay her moral damages of P75,000.00.

In convicting appellant, the trial court held:

The denial of Arsenio Mangaoang of any wrongdoing and his act of pointing to a certain Ward as the author of the crime is not convincing.

xxx

The Court is convinced that the evidence presented b the Prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.  Though there is no direct evidence of violence or intimidation, the circumstance that the offended parly is the daughter of the accused, justifies the substitution ol moral ascendancy and influence of the latter for violence and intimidation (People v. Burce, 26C SCRA 293)

The trial court further ruled that, based on the test results and evaluation by a psychologist from the National Center for Mental Health,

AAA was qualified to testify because she can perceive events and can communicate with others, notwithstanding her mental condition.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court in its findings that:

Finally, we go to the defense of denial raised by ARSENIO.  In the absence of corroborative evidence, the Court cannot accept his bare denial over AAA's straightforward and positive declaration. Between the positive and categorical testimony of a rape victim on one hand and the accused's bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails.

With all the foregoing discussion, we find no reason to reverse the judgment of the trial court. The prosecution was able to establish by sufficient evidence the guilt of the accused-appellant by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellate court also sustained the trial court's award of P75,000.00 as . moral damages pursuant to existing jurisprudence. It increased the award of civil indemnity from P50.000.00 to P75,000.00.  It also awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 "as a vindication of the undue sufferings and wanton invasion of her rights and to punish accused-appellant for his outrageous conduct."

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION in the sense that the penalty of death imposed on appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty.

(adv114)