June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 195193 : June 13, 2012]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS JUANITO METRE, JR. A.K.A. "LUCIO", APPELLANT.
"G.R. No. 195193 � THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus JUANITO METRE, JR. a.k.a."LUCIO", appellant.
Appellant appeals the Court of Appeals' September 24, 2010 Decision[1] which affirmed the decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Pi�as City, Branch 199, convicting him of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 committed against AAA,[3] who was only 11 years old when the crimes were committed.
Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts. Appellant was AAA's neighbor and the godfather of her younger brother. Around midnight of April 2, 2005, while AAA was sitting outside her house waiting for her mother to come home, appellant called AAA. AAA, however, did not heed his call so appellant approached AAA. Then, he pulled her towards the Multipurpose Hall and told her to lie on the floor and remove her clothes. When AAA refused, appellant removed AAA's clothes himself and pinned down her hands. Then he took off his clothes and inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. After the rape, he warned AAA not to tell anyone what happened.
On April 19, 2005, appellant again went to AAA's house and pretended to play with AAA's cousin and younger siblings. Appellant ran after AAA, and embraced her from behind and fondled her breast. AAA's cousin saw what appellant did to her and related the incident to AAA's mother, BBB. It was then that AAA revealed to her mother that appellant raped her. BBB sought the help of barangay officials and the police. When AAA was subjected to medical examination, it was found that AAA had deep, healed lacerations at the six and nine o'clock positions.
In the face of the prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial and alibi. Appellant claimed that on the night of April 2, 2005, he was at sea between the boundaries of Bacoor, Cavite and Las Pi�as tending to his shellfish farm. He had been away from home for almost 2 months so it was impossible for him to have raped AAA that night of April 2. Appellant also claimed that AAA disclosed to him that it was her stepfather who had raped her and that BBB filed the charges against him as revenge for his refusal to lend her money.
Appellant's story was corroborated by his common-law wife Gloria Nobleza (Gloria), their daughter Baby Jane Metre, and son-in-law Pablo Pomarca. Gloria testified that appellant had not been home for almost a week prior to April 1, 2005 and that on the night of the rape, there were many people in the Multipurpose Hall because appellant's son-in-law, Pablo, was teaching several young people the choreography for a dance contest. Gloria further claimed that BBB once confided to her that BBB's live-in partner had raped AAA. On April 19, 2005, Gloria and her daughter and son-in-law were also at AAA's house for they wanted to talk to BBB. They saw BBB beating AAA and asking the latter whether it was appellant or her stepfather who raped her. They allegedly heard AAA answer that it was her stepfather who had raped her.
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt appellant's guilt for the charges of rape and acts of lasciviousness. On the charge of rape, appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and was ordered to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages. As for the conviction for acts of lasciviousness, the RTC sentenced appellant to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, with all the accessory penalties under the law. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed appellant's convictions for rape and acts of lasciviousness but made modifications on the award of damages and the penalty imposed. The appellate court modified the penalty imposed on appellant for the crime of acts of lasciviousness to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 15 years, 6 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal as maximum. The CA additionally awarded exemplary damages of P30,000 for the rape of AAA, and P30,000 as moral damages and a fine of P30,000 for the acts of lasciviousness.
Undaunted, appellant filed the present appeal assailing the credibility of AAA and BBB.
After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the CA affirming appellant's conviction. 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 them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[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. The Court notes that the RTC had carefully scrutinized AAA's testimony and found that while AAA appeared to be timid and shy, her testimony was positive and convincing. Moreover, the testimony of AAA was corroborated by medical findings. Appellant failed to prove that AAA and BBB were impelled by any ill motive to testify against him. And while appellant claimed that he was working in his shellfish farm in the middle of the sea, he failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be in the locus criminis. Appellant even testified that it would only take him 5 minutes to go to the shoreline by using motorized boat. Moreover, the attempt of the defense to pinpoint AAA's stepfather as the rapist falls in the light of AAA's testimony in which she positively identified appellant as the one who raped her on April 2, 2005. cralaw
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 24, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03588 finding appellant Juanito Metre, Jr. guilty of rape and acts of lasciviousness is AFFIRMED.
With costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED." PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1227 dated 30 May 2012.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-24. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring. The Decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03588.[2] CA rollo, pp. 25-39. Penned by Judge Joselito dj. Vibandor.
[3] Consistent with our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419) the real name of the rape victim is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed.
[4] People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 281.
