August 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 191364 : August 17, 2011]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS CARLITO GAERLAN, APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 191364 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus CARLITO GAERLAN, appellant.
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals' Decision[1] of July 22, 2009 affirming the judgment[2] of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, of Iba, Zambales, finding appellant guilty of the crime of the qualified rape of his 13-year-old daughter, AAA.
Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts: AAA, who was born on August 14, 1985, was only 13 years old when appellant first raped her sometime in November 1998. The incident occurred around 4:00 a.m. one morning, when AAA had just finished cooking rice while her mother, a vendor, was already in the market selling vegetables and her two minor brothers were sleeping in one of the two bedrooms of their house. Appellant stealthily appeared from behind AAA and held both her hands behind her back. Then appellant dragged AAA to the vacant room where he forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. AAA felt pain when appellant inserted his penis inside her vagina. After the rape, appellant threatened to kill AAA, her mother, and her siblings if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Appellant also repeatedly raped AAA a number of times more until she got pregnant. When AAA could not anymore conceal her pregnancy due to her bulging stomach, she was forced to reveal to her mother that appellant had been raping her.
In the face of the prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial. Appellant claimed that it was impossible for him to rape AAA because from November 4 to 30, 1998 he was staying with his sister and repairing her house, which was almost twenty (20) kilometers from his house.
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties. He was ordered to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P75,000 as moral damages. The Court of Appeals (CA), as aforesaid, affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the monetary damages awarded by the RTC by increasing the civil indemnity to P75,000 and awarding an additional P25,000 as exemplary damages since the case involves qualified rape. Hence, this appeal, where appellant essentially calls for a reassessment of the credibility of AAA.
We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. There is no showing that either the RTC or the CA committed any error in law and in its findings of fact especially as to AAA's credibility. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound, discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses, especially since AAA's testimony meets the test of credibility.[4] The Court notes that other than his claim of denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. On the contrary, the RTC found that AAA's testimony was straightforward, logical, and credible. Appellant also failed to prove that AAA was impelled by any bad motive to testify against him.
As regards appellant's defense of alibi, well-settled is the rule that alibi is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim.[5] Moreover, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time the same was committed.[6] Here, such physical impossibility was not shown to have existed. The locus criminis was merely 20 kilometers from the house of appellant's sister, where he claimed to have been staying for nearly the whole of November 1998. He could have easily traversed the distance.
However, a modification is called for as regards the award of damages. Following the recent jurisprudence on the award of exemplary damages in qualified rape cases, the award of P25,000 as exemplary damages should be increased to P30,000.[7]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The July 22, 2009 Court, of Appeals' Decision in CA-G.R.CR-H.C. No. 03026 affirming the conviction of appellant Carlito Gaerlan for the crime of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the exemplary damages is increased to P30,000.
With costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Sixto Marella, Jr. concurring.[2] CA rollo, pp. 12-20. Penned by Judge Josefina D. Farrales.
[3] The victim's real name is withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006. 502 SCRA 419.
[4] People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
[5] People v. Florida, G.R. No. 90254, September 24, 1992, 214 SCRA 227, 239.
[6] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, February 8, 1994, 229 SCRA 754, 765.
[7] People v, Masagca, G.R. No. 184922, February 23, 2011, p. 7; People v. Rocabo, G.R. No. 193482, March 2, 2011, p. 6.