June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 200569 : June 13, 2012]
PACIFICO MENDIGO Y GALLENO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 200569 - PACIFICO MENDIGO y GALLENO, petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
The Case
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the decision[1] and the resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 4, 2011 and February 9, 2012, respectively, in CA-G.R.CR No. 33196.
Sometime in April 2005, AAA, a three-year old child, was in the bedroom of petitioner Pacifico Mendigo when the latter inserted his finger in AAA's vagina, and thereafter put his penis inside her mouth. AAA reported the incident to her mother, BBB, who, in turn, accompanied her daughter to the National Children's Hospital for examination. After a few days, AAA told BBB that the petitioner again inserted his finger in her private parts, and his penis in her mouth. Afterwards, AAA and BBB reported the incident to the police.
The prosecution charged the petitioner with the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City. In its decision of February 10, 2010, the RTC found the petitioner guilty, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The trial court also ordered the petitioner to pay the victim the following amounts: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, with the following modifications: (a) the indeterminate penalty was increased to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum; (b) the amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages were reduced to P30,000.00, respectively; and (c) the amount of exemplary damages was increased to P30,000.00.
The CA held that AAA positively identified the petitioner as the person who sexually assaulted her; it found her testimony categorical, consistent, straightforward, spontaneous, and unshaken by the grueling cross-examination The CA further ruled that the victim's inability to recall the exact date of the rape was not fatal to her cause, because date is not an essential element of rape. It added that a rape victim cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience, more so if she was a minor.
The CA likewise ruled that the alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony referred only to minor and trivial matters that bear no materiality to the commission of the rape.
The appellate court also found unmeritorious the petitioner's claim that the information failed to state the exact date of the rape, as this issue was raised for the first time on appeal. It, nonetheless, explained that the information is sufficient as long as the offense was committed at any time as near as to the actual date at which the offense was committed.
Finally, the CA disregarded the petitioner's denial, as this defense cannot take precedence over the victim's positive testimony. It ruled that the findings of facts and the assessment of the witnesses' credibility are matters best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed the witnesses' deportment on the witness stand.
In the present petition, the petitioner claimed that AAA was not a credible witness, as her testimony was full of inconsistencies. He also maintained that the medical findings did not support the victim's claim that she had been raped. He further argued that he should be acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove that the sexual assault happened on the date stated in the information.
The Court's Ruling
We stress that both the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony to be credible and convincing. It is settled that the findings of fact of the trial court, regarding the credibility of witnesses, are binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by the CA. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under grueling examination.
At any rate, the alleged inconsistencies regarding the testimony of the prosecution witnesses relate only to trivial matters, and consequently do not materially impair or impugn the very testimony of the victim.
We also find unmeritorious the petitioner's claim that he should be acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove that the sexual assault happened on the date stated in the information. As found by the CA, the victim repeatedly declared that the sexual assault transpired in April 2005.
Contrary to the petitioner's claim, the medical findings supported the lower courts' finding that AAA had been raped, as it showed that AAA suffered laceration on her private parts. In any case, a medical certificate is not indispensable to prove the commission of rape, for it is merely corroborative evidence. In this case, the lone testimony of the victim, AAA, which is credible, is sufficient to warrant the petitioner's conviction.cralaw
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition outright, and AFFIRM the decision dated October 4, 2011 of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated February 9, 2012, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 34-59; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, and concurred in by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Edwin D. Sorongon.[2] Id. at 61-63.
