Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > February 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 172706 : February 05, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, V. GUALBERTO TANGCAY, APPELLANT. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 5, 2008

G.R. No. 172706 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, v. GUALBERTO TANGCAY, appellant.

Gualberto Tangcay appeals from the Decision dated June 9, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 98, Quezon City finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against 12-year-old minor AAA, daughter of his live-in partner. He was sentenced to death and ordered to indemnify AAA in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay her PI50,000.00 as moral damages.

The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated June 23, 2005, affirmed in toto the trial court's Decisioh, finding that:

At any rate, the appreciation by the trial court is quite critical considering that crimes against chastity by their very nature usually involve only two persons - the victim and the accused.  "The rule is well-entrenched that findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and significance which, if considered, would alter the result of the case.  The reason for the rule being that trial courts have the distinct advantage of having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying or their conduct and behavior during the trial." (People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004) In this regard, the trial court has written that it

"had closely observed (AAA) in her entire testimony and that she was found to be candid, straight forward, and sincere in her answers to questions propounded by the prosecutor as well as the interrogation of the defense counsel. What the court noticed is that the victim visibly shudders and shed tears whenever the object of the inquiry relates to the frightful and shocking experience of her life."

After a careful review of the records of the case, we find no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals. However, we note that both the lower courts did not award exemplary damages to the victim. In People v. Catubig,^[1] the presence of aggravating circumstances, such as minority as in this case, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is called for, by way of example and to protect the young from sexual abuse.^[2]

Further, in accordance with current jurisprudence, the award of PI50,000.00 as moral damages is reduced to P75,000.00.^[1]

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals with the following modifications:

1)  Pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, the penalty of death imposed on appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole;

2)  The sum of P150,000.00 as moral damages awarded to AAA is reduced to P75,000.00; and

3)  The amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is awarded to AAA.

Endnotes:

---

^[1]G.R.No. 137842, August 23, 2001,363 SCRA 621.

^[2] People v. Sambrano, G.R. No. 143708, February 24, 2003, 398 SCRA 106.

^[3] People v. Ortizuela, G.R. No. 135675, June 23, 2004, 432 SCRA 574, citing People v. Sambrano, supra.