February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 191758 : February 22, 2012]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS FRANCISCO PREMISTA, APPELLANT.
"G.R. No. 191758 (The People of the Philippines, appellee, versus FRANCISCO PREMISTA, appellant.- On appeal is the Court of Appeals� Decision[1] of November 16, 2009 which affirmed in part the judgment[2] of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, of San Fernando City, Pampanga, finding appellant guilty of six counts of qualified rape of his 13-year-old stepdaughter, AAA.[3]
Appellant was charged before the RTC with six counts of rape in six separate informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 10409 to 10414. He entered a plea of not guilty to all charges and trial ensued.
At the trial, the prosecution proved the following facts. Appellant is the common-law husband of AAA's mother. The first rape occurred in the evening of July 7, 1998 when appellant approached AAA in their sala and poked a bladed weapon on her neck. Appellant kissed and touched AAA and warned her not to make any noise. Despite AAA's pleading, appellant forced her to undress and inserted his penis into her vagina. After the rape, appellant threatened AAA that he would kill his mother and sister, who were then sleeping in the other room, if she would not keep silent about the rape.
The second rape happened the following month, in August 1998, around midnight, also inside their house, while the third incident occurred during the night sometime in October 1998. Regarding the third incident, AAA recounted that appellant and her mother, BBB, went to the fishpond but appellant came home alone when AAA was already sleeping. Despite her pleading, appellant �touched [her] and abused [her].�[4]
As to the fourth rape, it happened sometime in November 1998. AAA recounted that appellant again raped her, threatening her, as in previous incidents.
The fifth and last incident occurred in the same manner sometime in December 1998. AAA testified that appellant again abused her. She testified that appellant "kissed [her], touched [her] and abused [her]."[5] It was after this incident that AAA decided to stay in her grandmother's house. However, AAA was not able to escape from appellant's clutches. On February 14, 1999, at around 10:00 p.m., while AAA was sleeping in her grandmother�s house and right after her grandfather left to attend a party, appellant came and, in her words, again abused her.[6] Unable to bear the agony of what appellant was doing to her, AAA revealed the rapes to her aunts and submitted herself to a medical examination. The medical examination revealed that AAA's labia majora and minora were coaptated, and multiple healed lacerations were observed on her hymen at the five, seven, nine and ten o'clock positions. AAA's vagina was able to admit two fingers and her uterus was more or less elastic, which is not usual for one who has not given birth or without sexual experience.
In the face of the prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial and alibi. Appellant denied the charges against him and AAA's mother, BBB, testified in support of his defense. According to BBB, the house of AAA's grandmother is near their house and that AAA lived with her grandmother. AAA only visited BBB's house three times a week, and would usually leave around 6:00 p.m. after supper. BBB claimed that she observed AAA returning home late at night to her grandmother's house after having conversations with her cousins in the neighborhood. She talked to AAA about returning home late at night and AAA fought back. Also, BBB did not believe that appellant raped AAA since AAA was with her aunt in Sta. Maria, Mexico, Pampanga on July 7, 1998 while on February 14, 1999, BBB was with appellant the whole time.
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt only of six counts of simple rape for failure of the prosecution to prove relationship, and sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties for each count. But for the first count of rape in Criminal Case No. 10409, the RTC found that the prosecution ably proved that it was committed with the use of a deadly weapon. As such, for each count of rape, appellant was ordered to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages. Exemplary damages amounting to P25,000 was also awarded to her in Criminal Case No. 10409 since the first rape was done with the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon. The RTC characterized AAA's testimony as clear, categorical and straightforward with words typical of a 14-year-old lass. AAA was on the witness stand at four different times on separate months and sometimes she would cry at her misery, which testimony in its entirety was found by the RTC to be spontaneous and consistent. 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, partly affirmed appellant's conviction. While the CA agreed with the findings of the RTC, it acquitted appellant in Criminal Case Nos. 10411, 10413, and 10414 for failure of the prosecution to show that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA on the alleged occasions. In these three criminal cases where appellant was acquitted, the CA found that the statement of AAA that she was abused by appellant as generalized and cannot necessarily be taken to mean sexual intercourse. But as to the other instances, the testimony of AAA was clear on how she was raped by appellant. The CA added that as regards Criminal Case No. 10409, the RTC correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon; thus, the imposable penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. However, the CA held, that the trial court should have considered the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age of the victim which has the effect of increasing the imposable penalty to death. With the abolition of death penalty under Republic Act No. 9346, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed but without affecting the proper civil liability based on the attending qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Thus, the CA held that in Criminal Case No. 10409, AAA is entitled to P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. In Criminal Case Nos. 10410 and 10412, the CA awarded P25,000 exemplary damages so as to set a public example against elders abusing and corrupting the youth.
Undaunted, appellant filed the instant appeal where he 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.[7] The Court notes that other than his claim of denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence as regards the three counts of rape for which he was convicted. Indeed, the CA correctly ruled that appellant's submission that AAA fabricated the charges because of jealousy over the new family and dislike for him is self-serving in the absence of evidence indicating that she harbored such ill feelings.
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.[8] 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.[9] Here, such physical impossibility was not shown to have existed.
However, a modification is called for as regards the award of damages. In Criminal Case No. 10409, when appellant committed rape with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty is the range of two indivisible penalties of reclusion perpetua to death. And 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.[10] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The November 16, 2009 Court of Appeals' Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03050 affirming the conviction of appellant Francisco Premista for the crime of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 10409, 10410, and 10412 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the exemplary damages is increased to P30,000 in Criminal Case Nos. 10409, 10410 and 10412, 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.
With costs against the appellant."
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.[2] CA rollo, pp. 7-45. Penned by Judge Adelaida Ala-Medina.
[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] TSN, September 20, 1999, p. 12.
[5] Id. at 15.
[6] Id. at 16-17.
[7] See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
[8] See People v. Florida, G.R. No. 90254, September 24, 1992, 214 SCRA 227, 239.
[9] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, February 8, 1994, 229 SCRA 754, 765.
[10] See People v. Castro, G.R. No. 188901, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 784, 796.
