February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 199888 : February 22, 2012]
VIOL OROSIO (OROSIO) A.K.A. VIOL/VIOLI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 199888 [Viol Orosio (Orosio) a.k.a. Viol/Violi, et al., petitioners v. People of the Philippines, respondent].- After deliberating on the submitted petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals, Manila dated June 30, 2011 and its Resolution dated December 5, 2011, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04247, and considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced therein, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to show any reversible error in the challenged judgment as to warrant the exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
First, the petitioners tried to impress upon this Court that complainant AAA's testimony should be disregarded for being full of inconsistencies and, therefore, not credible. Settled is the rule, however, that questions concerning the credibility of a witness are best addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, since it is in the best position to observe the demeanor of a witness. This becomes all the more compelling when the appellate court affirms the findings of the trial court. Thus, we generally defer to the trial court's assessment, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capaciousness or palpable error.[1]
Further, the inconsistencies that the petitioners are trying to point out in the testimony of AAA refer to minor and collateral matters that do not affect the veracity and truthfulness of her account as to what really happened on that fateful night, and they do not touch upon the very elements of the crime. These inconsistencies even bolster the credibility of the witness' testimony as they douse the suspicion that the witness could have been coached or rehearsed. It is in fact, when the testimony appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving as to its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.[2] AAA's testimony was, nonetheless, corroborated by Emma Ruth who accompanied her to SM North Edsa and by Dr. Baluyut who examined her after the incident.
Secondly, the defense that they were merely implicated out of revenge by Jonathan Tiangco and that they were residents of Pampanga and that they never went to Manila and resided in Pasay City, deserves scant consideration. Denial and alibi, being negative defenses cannot prevail over the positive testimony of AAA. Between the positive and categorical testimony of the victim on one hand and the accused's bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails.[3] As held by the CA, it was not impossible for the petitioners to have committed the crime as they could have just traveled from Pampanga to Manila and back considering that the two places were just a ride away. For their alibi to hold water, they should have proved that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission.[4]
Finally, the CA was correct in sustaining the findings of the trial court that there was conspiracy among the petitioners. There was a clear showing that each actively participated in a manner that was geared towards the purpose of subjecting AAA to sexual exploitation/prostitution through fraud and deception. As it was committed by a syndicate, the crime committed was qualified trafficking which, according to Section 6, paragraph (c) Republic Act 9208, is committed when it is carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. Thus, the imposed penalty by the trial court was correct as it conforms to Section 10 paragraph (c) of the same law which provides that "any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine not less than Two million pesos (Php 2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (Php 5,000,000.00)."cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the June 30, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals and its December 5, 2011 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04247 which sustained the November 23, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94 in Criminal Case No. Q-06144502, finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of R.A. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 and sentencing each to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Two (2) Million Pesos and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 179044, December 6, 2010; citing People v. Elarcosa, G.R. No. 18539, June 29, 2010.
[2] People v. Macapanas, G.R. No. 187049, May 4, 2010, 620 SCRA 54, 72-73.
[3] People v. Publico, G.R. No. 183569, April 13, 2011; citing People v. Cambi, G.R. No. 127131, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA 305
[4] People v. Publico, G.R. No. 133560, April 13, 2011.