January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 193923 : January 18, 2012]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ARLY RESTUM Y RAQUID, APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 193923�THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus ARLY RESTUM y RAQUID, appellant.
On appeal is the April 22, 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the judgment[2] of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, of Oriental Mindoro, Calapan City, finding appellant guilty of raping AAA.
Briefly, the prosecution proved the following facts. On June 15, 2000 AAA was staying at a friend's house. At around 10 o'clock in the evening, AAA woke up and went to the comfort room, which was around twelve (12) meters away from the house. As AAA was about to go back from the comfort room, appellant held her shoulder and poked a knife on her neck. AAA knew appellant and recognized his voice. Appellant dragged AAA towards a grassy banana plantation around eighty (80) meters from the back of the house. Appellant forced AAA to lie down and removed her clothing. After undressing AAA, appellant unzipped his maong shorts, mounted AAA, and inserted his penis into her vagina causing her to feel pain. After satisfying his lust, appellant threatened to kill AAA if she told anyone of the incident but he also stated to her that he was willing to marry her.
After the rape, AAA went to the house of her cousin BBB and told him what appellant did to her. BBB reacted angrily and told her that appellant should marry AAA. BBB then called appellant and the latter agreed to marry AAA.
For three days, AAA and appellant slept side-by-side in BBB's house. AAA made appellant believe that she agreed to marry him and have sexual intercourse with him after the marriage ceremony, but in truth, she was just looking for opportunity to escape since she was being forced to marry appellant. Subsequently, AAA and appellant were brought before the barangay captain of their place. AAA told the barangay captain that she does not love appellant and that the latter had raped her. However, the barangay captain told AAA that she should just learn to love appellant. Then, the barangay captain prepared a document stating that appellant must marry AAA; otherwise, he would be charged for raping AAA.
On June 19, 2000, AAA went to the house of her maternal uncle and grandfather and narrated to them that appellant had raped her and that BBB was forcing her to marry appellant. AAA's uncle and grandfather then accompanied AAA to the police station where she submitted herself to medical examination.
The doctor who conducted the medical examination found that AAA had sustained healed hymenal lacerations which could have been caused by the insertion of a male sex organ, and that the hymenal lacerations could have been sustained by AAA about 5 days or more prior to her examination.
In the face of prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial and the affirmative defense that he and AAA were lovers. He averred that he and AAA became lovers on June 12, 2000 and agreed to elope on June 15, 2000. And since they decided to get married, they had sexual intercourse on the night of June 15 inside BBB's house. Appellant also alleged that he signed a document before the barangay captain with no knowledge of its full contents, although he believed that it merely stated that he and AAA eloped. He further claimed that after he was incarcerated. AAA asked him for P150,000 in exchange for his freedom.
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties. The RTC likewise ordered him to pay AAA the sum of P100,000 as civil indemnity and P75,000 as moral and exemplary damages. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Hence, this appeal.
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 in this case 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 this Court's own review of the records leads it to conclude that 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. On the contrary, the RTC found that AAA's testimony was straightforward, logical, and credible. Further, the defense of consensual sex, which appellant has raised, must be established by strong evidence in order to be worthy of judicial acceptance. Appellant's "sweetheart" theory, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence � some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like.[5] Other than appellant's testimony, however, no convincing evidence was presented to substantiate his theory. Notably, apart from appellant's allegation that he and AAA were sweethearts, no love letter, memento or picture was presented by him to prove that such romantic relationship existed. And as correctly observed by the CA, even supposing that the sweetheart theory is true, a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will for love is not a license for lust.[6]
We likewise sustain the award of P50,000 as moral damages, but reduce the award of P100,000 civil indemnity to P50,000 and increase the award of exemplary damages to P30,000 conformably with current jurisprudence.[7]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The April 22, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02767, which affirmed appellant Arly Restum y Raquid's conviction for rape, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The award of civil indemnity is reduced to P50,000 and the award of 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. 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Japar H. Dimaampao and Normandie B. Pizarro concurring.[2] CA rollo, pp. 9-18. Penned by Judge Tomas C. Leynes.
[3] Consistent with our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426, 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.
[5] People v. Corpus, G.R. No. 175836, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 465, 471.
[6] See People v. Pulanco, G.R. No. 141186, November 27, 2003, 416 SCRA 532, 537.
[7] See People v. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 5, 2011, p. 13 and People v Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, March 16, 2011, 645 SCRA 658, 670.