August 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 196437 : August 17, 2011]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VERSUS PABLO DINAMLING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 196437 � PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee versus PABLO DINAMLING, accused-appellant.
Before us is appellant Pablo Dinamling's appeal from the June 22, 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02913. The CA affirmed the Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, of Lagawe, Ifugao, convicting appellant for raping his six-year-old daughter, AAA.[3]
During the trial, AAA testified and identified her father as her rapist. According to her, the rape happened in their house while AAA's mother and siblings were in her grandmother's house. AAA also testified that she revealed the crime to her mother the following day. Her mother, on the other hand, testified that AAA revealed the crime to her after several days. The doctor who examined AAA, twenty-two (22) days after the rape, testified that AAA sustained a scarred tissue at one o'clock position in the perennial area and opined that the same could have been caused by a hardened penis inserted in AAA's vagina.
The RTC gave full faith and credit to AAA's testimony and convicted appellant on the basis thereof. Appellant appealed to the CA, arguing that the inconsistency in the testimony of AAA that she told her mother of the crime a day after it was committed and the testimony of AAA's mother that AAA informed her of the incident "after some days passed" creates a serious doubt on the veracity of the accusation.
The CA ruled that the inconsistency is a minor matter that does not affect the commission of the crime and AAA's credibility. The CA held that the date when AAA reported the crime is not decisive of appellant's guilt or innocence. What is decisive in a rape case is the complainant's positive identification of the rapist, said the CA.
We affirm appellant's conviction.
The Court has repeatedly said that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.[4] In this case, the trial court gave full faith and credit to AAA's testimony. The rule is that evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter best undertaken by the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude especially under cross-examination. Its assessment is entitled to respect unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[5] Here, we agree with the CA that the inconsistency in the testimonies of AAA and her mother on when AAA reported the crime is a minor matter that will not affect the finding of guilt.
Settled is the rule that the testimony of a rape victim of render or immature age deserves full credit.[6] This rule stands notwithstanding the inconsistent statements as to when the victim reported the rape to her mother, as in this case. As we held in People v. Suarez[7]:
The perceived inconsistencies or contradictions by the defense refer to minor and insignificant details which, if considered, would not alter the outcome of the case. They do not even refer to the gravamen of the crime. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters�not to the central fact of the crime�do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses' declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. The Court has recognized that even the most candid of witnesses make erroneous, confused or inconsistent statements, especially when they are young and easily overwhelmed by the atmosphere in the courtroom. It would be too much to expect a 14-year-old to remember each detail of her harrowing experience.[8]
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of merit and AFFIRM the Decision dated June 22, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR H.C. No. 02913.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] CA rollo, pp. 67-74. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.[2] Id. at 13-17. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ester L. Piscoso-Flor.
[3] Consistent with the ruling of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real names of the victim AAA, as well as those of her family members and any other relevant information that would tend to establish or compromise her identity, is withheld.
[4] People v. Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 307, 317.
[5] Id. at 316.
[6] People v. Blancaflor, G.R. No. 130586, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 354, 359.
[7] G.R. Nos. 153573-76, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 333.
[8] Id. at 345.