January 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > January 2009 Resolutions >
[G-R. No. 180611 : January 14, 2009] PASTOR NOLLY VILLAMOR Y GUTIERREZ V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS :
[G-R. No. 180611 : January 14, 2009]
PASTOR NOLLY VILLAMOR Y GUTIERREZ V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 14 January 2009:
G-R. No. 180611 (Pastor Nolly Villamor y Gutierrez v. People of the Philippines and the Honorable Court of Appeals). - Petitioner Pastor Nolly Villamor y Gutierrez (petitioner), pastor of the Unlimited Christ Church International (church) in Barangay Graja, Lipa City, Batangas, was charged with three (3) counts of sexual harassment under Republic Act (RA) No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995) and two (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness under Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges. Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution claims that on May 24, 1997, around ,12 noon, or after their service practice, while the church members were outside, petitioner suddenly approached and kissed private complainant Hermilyn Damasco (Damasco), then 15 years old, on the cheeks and mashed her breasts. This incident was witnessed by one Edralin Magpanlay. Surprised by the latter's presence, petitioner hurriedly went to his office and wrapped a towel around his waist. Damasco kept the incident to herself. On June 1, 1997, around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, petitioner asked Damasco to accompany him in the church sendee vehicle to buy poultry feeds. While on their way, petitioner opened his zipper and showed Damasco his penis, saying "Milyn, ipapasok ko at ilalabas ko kapag may lumabas." Damasco was shocked and said "Ayoko. Ayoko" Damasco kept these incidents to herself.
Earlier, in March 1997, another church member, Angelita Rivera (Rivera) was allegedly molested by petitioner. Petitioner also kissed Rivera, then a 15-year-old student, and mashed her breasts. Petitioner then handed Rivera's allowance as church teacher by placing the money between Rivera's thighs,
Both Damasco and Rivera kept their silence until they learned that one Diosa Matibag was also molested by petitioner. This later incident prompted them to tell their respective parents, who then caused the filing of the corresponding complaints. Upon the filing of the Informations, petitioner voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.
Traversing the charges, petitioner denies the accusation against him and contends that on May 24 1997, there was an on-going construction in the church and about ten (10) people were present in the vicinity; that Edralin Magpantay, the witness, also made a similar testimony that led to the ouster of one Pastor Ramil Marquina of the same church; and that the family of Damasco harbored ill-motive against him since his wife, Pastor Fely, caused the removal of Katherine Damasco, sister of complainant, as treasurer of the church because of allegations that the family was malversing church funds. Pastor Fely corroborated the testimony of her husband, saying that the Damasco family conspired to oust petitioner due to her strict attitude towards complainant. Other witnesses were introduced in order to corroborate the testimony of petitioner.
The regional trial court (trial court) convicted petitioner as charged, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of one (1) month, as minimum, to six (6) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P10,000.00 for each count of sexual harassment; and imprisonment of five (5) months and ten (10) days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correctional, as maximum, together with all the accessory penalties for each count of acts of lasciviousness.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision dated May 29, 2007, the CA acquitted petitioner of the crime of sexual harassment for failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offense. Petitioner was also acquitted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness committed against Rivera for failure of the prosecution to prove the minority of Rivera. However, the CA found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness committed against Damasco, sentencing the petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) months of arresto mayor.
Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated November 14, 2007. Hence, this Petition.
Before this Court, petitioner asseverates that the members of the family of Damasco were ill-motivated against him; that the assailed CA Decision is premised -on misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises and conjectures; that on such account, the CA failed and erred in not appreciating the material and relevant facts which, if considered, will justify a different conclusion, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner. For these reasons, petitioner insists that findings of facts of the lower courts should be reviewed by this Court.
The petition is bereft of merit.
The petitioner's arguments do not inspire belief. First. It is incredible that Damasco would concoct the charge against the petitioner and allow herself to be used by her family, not only to oust the petitioner, a pastor of the church of which they are members, but also to impute a serious charge against him. Second.The petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove the alleged ill-motive on the part of the complainant. Absent a showing of any ill-motive, Damasco's testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.
The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the complainant. It is well-settled that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misapprehended or misinterpreted. However, the petitioner failed to sufficiently show any circumstance that might have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial court, especially after such findings were affirmed by the CA. We have consistently ruled that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question of credibility of witnesses having heard them during trial. As it is, no compelling reason has been presented by the petitioner in this case to disturb such findings. [1]
The fact that the petitioner molested Damasco in a sacred place like the church which, at the time, was under renovation and in the presence of at least ten people, is not improbable. In a catena of cases, we have ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place. If rape can be committed in places where people congregate, even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping, there is less reason to believe that the presence of other people in the same room can serve as a deterrent for the commission of lascivious acts.[2]
Thus, finding no reversible error in the decision of the CA, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner,
SO ORDERED.
G-R. No. 180611 (Pastor Nolly Villamor y Gutierrez v. People of the Philippines and the Honorable Court of Appeals). - Petitioner Pastor Nolly Villamor y Gutierrez (petitioner), pastor of the Unlimited Christ Church International (church) in Barangay Graja, Lipa City, Batangas, was charged with three (3) counts of sexual harassment under Republic Act (RA) No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995) and two (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness under Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges. Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution claims that on May 24, 1997, around ,12 noon, or after their service practice, while the church members were outside, petitioner suddenly approached and kissed private complainant Hermilyn Damasco (Damasco), then 15 years old, on the cheeks and mashed her breasts. This incident was witnessed by one Edralin Magpanlay. Surprised by the latter's presence, petitioner hurriedly went to his office and wrapped a towel around his waist. Damasco kept the incident to herself. On June 1, 1997, around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, petitioner asked Damasco to accompany him in the church sendee vehicle to buy poultry feeds. While on their way, petitioner opened his zipper and showed Damasco his penis, saying "Milyn, ipapasok ko at ilalabas ko kapag may lumabas." Damasco was shocked and said "Ayoko. Ayoko" Damasco kept these incidents to herself.
Earlier, in March 1997, another church member, Angelita Rivera (Rivera) was allegedly molested by petitioner. Petitioner also kissed Rivera, then a 15-year-old student, and mashed her breasts. Petitioner then handed Rivera's allowance as church teacher by placing the money between Rivera's thighs,
Both Damasco and Rivera kept their silence until they learned that one Diosa Matibag was also molested by petitioner. This later incident prompted them to tell their respective parents, who then caused the filing of the corresponding complaints. Upon the filing of the Informations, petitioner voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.
Traversing the charges, petitioner denies the accusation against him and contends that on May 24 1997, there was an on-going construction in the church and about ten (10) people were present in the vicinity; that Edralin Magpantay, the witness, also made a similar testimony that led to the ouster of one Pastor Ramil Marquina of the same church; and that the family of Damasco harbored ill-motive against him since his wife, Pastor Fely, caused the removal of Katherine Damasco, sister of complainant, as treasurer of the church because of allegations that the family was malversing church funds. Pastor Fely corroborated the testimony of her husband, saying that the Damasco family conspired to oust petitioner due to her strict attitude towards complainant. Other witnesses were introduced in order to corroborate the testimony of petitioner.
The regional trial court (trial court) convicted petitioner as charged, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of one (1) month, as minimum, to six (6) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P10,000.00 for each count of sexual harassment; and imprisonment of five (5) months and ten (10) days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correctional, as maximum, together with all the accessory penalties for each count of acts of lasciviousness.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision dated May 29, 2007, the CA acquitted petitioner of the crime of sexual harassment for failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offense. Petitioner was also acquitted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness committed against Rivera for failure of the prosecution to prove the minority of Rivera. However, the CA found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness committed against Damasco, sentencing the petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) months of arresto mayor.
Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated November 14, 2007. Hence, this Petition.
Before this Court, petitioner asseverates that the members of the family of Damasco were ill-motivated against him; that the assailed CA Decision is premised -on misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises and conjectures; that on such account, the CA failed and erred in not appreciating the material and relevant facts which, if considered, will justify a different conclusion, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner. For these reasons, petitioner insists that findings of facts of the lower courts should be reviewed by this Court.
The petition is bereft of merit.
The petitioner's arguments do not inspire belief. First. It is incredible that Damasco would concoct the charge against the petitioner and allow herself to be used by her family, not only to oust the petitioner, a pastor of the church of which they are members, but also to impute a serious charge against him. Second.The petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove the alleged ill-motive on the part of the complainant. Absent a showing of any ill-motive, Damasco's testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.
The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the complainant. It is well-settled that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misapprehended or misinterpreted. However, the petitioner failed to sufficiently show any circumstance that might have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial court, especially after such findings were affirmed by the CA. We have consistently ruled that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question of credibility of witnesses having heard them during trial. As it is, no compelling reason has been presented by the petitioner in this case to disturb such findings. [1]
The fact that the petitioner molested Damasco in a sacred place like the church which, at the time, was under renovation and in the presence of at least ten people, is not improbable. In a catena of cases, we have ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place. If rape can be committed in places where people congregate, even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping, there is less reason to believe that the presence of other people in the same room can serve as a deterrent for the commission of lascivious acts.[2]
Thus, finding no reversible error in the decision of the CA, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner,
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCATA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCATA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Sibuyo v. People, 463 Phil 168,177 (2003), citing People v, Perez, 351 SCRA 549 (2001).
[2] People v. Jimenez, G.R. Nos. 137790-91, April 16, 2001,356 SCRA 508, 520.
