January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 194229 : January 18, 2012]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS WILSON GAMEZ Y BULAWAN, APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 194229- THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus WILSON GAMEZ y BULAWAN, appellant.
Appellant Wilson Gamez y Bulawan appeals the Court of Appeals' Decision[1] of May 26, 2010 which affirmed the judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, of Balayan, Batangas, convicting him of the crime of the qualified rape of his his 16-year-old stepdaughter, AAA.[3]
Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts: AAA is the stepdaughter of appellant as the latter is married to AAA's mother. At the time of the incident, AAA was living with her maternal grandparents in a house just across the street from the house of her mother and appellant.
At around 2:30 in the morning of May 8, 2007, AAA was asleep in her room but was awakened by appellant, who laid on top of her and poked a knife at her neck. Appellant pulled down AAA's shorts and inserted his penis into her vagina for which she felt pain. AAA was able to free herself after a while, and she ran to the adjacent room of her grandfather. When she and her grandfather went back to AAA's room, however, appellant was no longer there. But he left his knife behind.
In the same morning, they reported the incident to the police. The police formed a team to look for appellant who was no longer in his house. AAA's mother confirmed that appellant was not home during the time of the rape. Meanwhile, AAA was brought to the Batangas Provincial Hospital for examination. The medical examination revealed positive fresh laceration in AAA's vagina which admits one finger with ease. Appellant, for his part, was later apprehended by the police at a nearby sugarcane field.
In the face of the prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial. Appellant claimed that from 10:00 p.m. of May 7, 2007 to 5:00 a.m. of May 8, 2007 he was at the peryahan in the town plaza. He narrates that when he alighted from the jeep, his brother-in-law threw a stone at him and chased him with a samurai towards the sugarcane field. When his brother-in-law caught up with him, the former struck him with the samurai, injuring his right thumb. Shortly thereafter, the police arrived and arrested him. Appellant also claimed that AAA concocted the story of rape because he told her mother that AAA had once come home drunk and AAA was scolded.
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 P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75.000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA), as aforesaid, affirmed appellant's conviction. 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.[4] 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. The Court notes that other than his claim of denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. While the RTC found that AAA's testimony contains inconsistencies (specifically, regarding whether the rape lasted for a few minutes or two hours, whether the knife was placed on the window sill or not, and whether AAA was raped once or twice), such refer to minor details which do not detract from the tact that appellant raped his stepdaughter on May 8, 2007. The CA also correctly held that the apparent lack of resistance and submissiveness on the part of AAA does not detract from the finding of rape. As correctly ruled by the CA, the rape victim has no burden to prove resistance. Resistance is not an element of rape and the absence thereof does not constitute consent. More, it should be noted that appellant exercised moral ascendancy over AAA since he is her stepfather and AAA's biological father died when she was two years old. Thus, the fact that a knife was held to her neck and the fact that her stepfather exercised moral ascendancy over her, could have led AAA to behave as she did during the rape. Lastly, we also note that appellant 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.
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] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The May 26, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03944 affirming the conviction of appellant Wilson Gamez y Bulawan for the crime of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the exemplary damages is increased to P30,000, 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. 2-7. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Ramon R. Garcia concurring.[2] CA rollo, pp. 24-43. Penned by Judge Maria Cecilia I. Austria.
[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, 281.
[5] See 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, 644 SCRA 278, 287; ople v. Rocabo, G.R. No. 193482, March 2, 2011, 644 SCRA 508, 515.