Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > February 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 193836 : February 22, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ALENXANDER DASICO, APPELLANT. :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 February 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

"G.R. No. 193836 (People of the Philippines, appellee, versus Alenxander Dasico, appellant). -On appeal is the Court of Appeals' Decision^[1] of June 29, 2010 affirming the judgment^[2] of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36, of the City of Calamba, Laguna, finding appellant guilty of six counts of rape of AAA^[3], who was only 12 years old at the time of the rapes.

Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts at the trial. AAA is the daughter of appellant's live-in partner, BBB. AAA used to sleep in another room in the house but started sleeping in BBB and appellant's room when she got sick. Appellant found this to be to his liking and even asked AAA to sleep between him and BBB. In the evening of April 3, 2002, one day prior to the first rape, AAA was awakened when appellant was touching her breast and vagina. AAA resisted appellant's advances and told him not to do it. The next evening, on April 4, appellant mounted AAA and kissed her. Despite her resistance, appellant succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. Even though her mother was just an arm's length away, AAA did not shout for fear that appellant might become violent. When Dasico had finished raping her, AAA sobbed quietly. This scenario was repeated every night from April 5 to 9. But on the evening of April 10, 2002, while appellant was molesting AAA, curious neighbors were able to catch appellant in the act after peeping through the holes in the house. Appellant was arrested in the same night and AAA was subjected to physical examination by the medico-legal officer who found healed lacerations in AAA's genital area and concluded that she was already in a non-virginal state.

In the face of the prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial. Appellant claimed that he had a good relationship with AAA and could not have raped her since she slept in another room with his children from a previous relationship. He also claimed that it was BBB who physically abused AAA on March 1 and 15, 2002 because of suspicion that AAA and appellant were having a sexual relationship.

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six counts of simple rape since the prosecution failed to present AAA's birth certificate to prove her age. The trial court sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties and ordered him to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages for each count of rape. The RTC characterized AAA's testimony as straightforward, natural and spontaneous. It noted that AAA gave clear and concise recitals of fact and was a credible witness. As a minor, AAA's language was of innocence and truth, and she showed no prejudice or sinister motive against appellant. In addition to finding AAA's testimony credible, the RTC also found that the physical findings of penetration support the conclusion that there was carnal knowledge.

The Court of Appeals (CA), as aforesaid, affirmed appellant's conviction. The CA found that AAA satisfactorily explained why she did not cry out to her mother when she was being raped. It gave credence to AAA's straightforward statement that she was afraid of appellant for she had seen how appellant had subjected her mother BBB to violence. The CA also noted that the prosecution was able to prove by psychiatric evidence that AAA adopted what is called the accommodation syndrome, a defense mechanism that rape victims sometimes adopt when they are in no position to resist their attackers. Victims reacting that way feel they could not make any resistance and choose not to make any noise in the hope that the deed will just go away. The CA further noted that jurisprudence is replete with rulings that people react differently to a given situation and there is no standard human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience.

Aggrieved, appellant filed the instant appeal essentially questioning AAA's credibility.

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.

However, as to the award of damages and in line with current jurisprudence, an additional award of P30,000 as exemplary damages should be given.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The June 29, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02166 affirming the conviction of appellant Alexander Dasico for the six counts of rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000 for each count is hereby awarded, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded in this case from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.

Costs against appellant."

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2-7. Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guari�a III with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 18-30. Penned by Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen. 

^[3] Consistent with our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, we withhold the real name of the victim and her immediate family members, as well as any information which tends to establish or compromise her identity. 

^[4] See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.