September 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > September 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 185161 : September 30, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PATROCINIO RICO:
[G.R. No. 185161 : September 30, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PATROCINIO RICO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 30 September 2009:
G.R. No. 185161 -People of the Philippines v. Patrocinio Rico
Appellant Patrocinio Rico, was charged with the crime of incestuous rape for forcibly having-sexual intercourse with his own daughter, Amelia.[1] She was 12 years old when he began raping her in 1999. She filed her complaint against him assisted by her grandmother, Beatriz, three years later. Amelia mustered the courage to report the incident after she learned that her father also raped her sister, Carla, who became pregnant as a result of their father's bestial acts.[2]
Appellant denied that he committed the crime. He claimed that Beatriz merely goaded his daughter out of anger at him.[3]
Apart from the testimonies of Amelia and Beatriz, the prosecution also presented documentary evidence consisting of Amelia's birth certificate[4] which showed that she was a minor, as well as a medico-legal certificate[5] stating that Amelia was no longer a virgin. As the doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination had already died, it was the record custodian who testified on the genuiness and due execution of the medico-legal certificate.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted appellant and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. It found Amelia's testimony to be simple, straightforward and credible, and rejected appellant's defense of denial[6] According to the trial court, no young woman would accuse her father of such a grave crime unless she was truly wronged;[7]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC judgment but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, in view of the abolition of the death penalty. It also directed appellant to pay Amelia civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00 and P25,000.00 in exemplary damages.[8]
The appellate court held that appellant's uncorroborated denial cannot prevail over Amelia's positive testimony, which it found to be candid, consistent and credible. The failure of the doctor who examined Amelia to testify on the findings stated in the medico-legal certificate was also immaterial, as the credible testimony alone of the victim may be sufficient basis for conviction.[9]
Neither did the appellate court find anything irregular about Amelia's late disclosure of the rape. Her sister Carla's revelation that she was sexually abused by appellant gave Amelia the courage to finally reveal that she was similarly abused.
On Amelia's alleged inability to recall the exact dates of the sexual abuses, the appellate court held that this circumstance does not necessarily affect her credibility. She was able to give a time frame for the abuses committed against her, and the traumatic experience may have resulted in a subconscious effort to forget details of the incident.[10] Similarly, the failure of the information to specify the exact dates when the rapes occurred did not make the information defective. It is enough that the information states that the crime was committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Besides, appellant did not object to the sufficiency of the information before the trial court and is therefore barred from raising the issue on appeal.[11]
The issue in this appeal is whether or not appellant's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt by Amelia's testimony.
In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's testimony is almost always the single most important issue. When the complainant's testimony is credible, as in this case, it may be the sole basis for convicting the accused. [12] Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found Amelia's testimony to be categorical, spontaneous and convincing. Both courts gave more weight to Amelia's positive testimony, as against the denial of appellant. On the matter of credibility of witnesses, the Court generally accords respect and even finality to the findings of the lower courts. Hence, unless appellant shows that some substantial fact had been overlooked or misconstrued that would change the outcome of the case, the Court will affirm the findings of the lower courts. Here, appellant failed to cite any compelling reason for the Court to reverse the findings below.
ACCORDINGLY, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 00578 is AFFIRMED, but with MODIFICATION of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75.000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[13]
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (designated additional member per S.O. No. 691 in lieu of Quisumbing, J., on sabbatical leave), *Diosdado M. Peralta (designated additional member per S.O. No. 711 in lieu of Brion, J., on sick leave), Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 30th day of October, 2009.
G.R. No. 185161 -People of the Philippines v. Patrocinio Rico
Appellant Patrocinio Rico, was charged with the crime of incestuous rape for forcibly having-sexual intercourse with his own daughter, Amelia.[1] She was 12 years old when he began raping her in 1999. She filed her complaint against him assisted by her grandmother, Beatriz, three years later. Amelia mustered the courage to report the incident after she learned that her father also raped her sister, Carla, who became pregnant as a result of their father's bestial acts.[2]
Appellant denied that he committed the crime. He claimed that Beatriz merely goaded his daughter out of anger at him.[3]
Apart from the testimonies of Amelia and Beatriz, the prosecution also presented documentary evidence consisting of Amelia's birth certificate[4] which showed that she was a minor, as well as a medico-legal certificate[5] stating that Amelia was no longer a virgin. As the doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination had already died, it was the record custodian who testified on the genuiness and due execution of the medico-legal certificate.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted appellant and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. It found Amelia's testimony to be simple, straightforward and credible, and rejected appellant's defense of denial[6] According to the trial court, no young woman would accuse her father of such a grave crime unless she was truly wronged;[7]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC judgment but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, in view of the abolition of the death penalty. It also directed appellant to pay Amelia civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00 and P25,000.00 in exemplary damages.[8]
The appellate court held that appellant's uncorroborated denial cannot prevail over Amelia's positive testimony, which it found to be candid, consistent and credible. The failure of the doctor who examined Amelia to testify on the findings stated in the medico-legal certificate was also immaterial, as the credible testimony alone of the victim may be sufficient basis for conviction.[9]
Neither did the appellate court find anything irregular about Amelia's late disclosure of the rape. Her sister Carla's revelation that she was sexually abused by appellant gave Amelia the courage to finally reveal that she was similarly abused.
On Amelia's alleged inability to recall the exact dates of the sexual abuses, the appellate court held that this circumstance does not necessarily affect her credibility. She was able to give a time frame for the abuses committed against her, and the traumatic experience may have resulted in a subconscious effort to forget details of the incident.[10] Similarly, the failure of the information to specify the exact dates when the rapes occurred did not make the information defective. It is enough that the information states that the crime was committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Besides, appellant did not object to the sufficiency of the information before the trial court and is therefore barred from raising the issue on appeal.[11]
The issue in this appeal is whether or not appellant's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt by Amelia's testimony.
In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's testimony is almost always the single most important issue. When the complainant's testimony is credible, as in this case, it may be the sole basis for convicting the accused. [12] Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found Amelia's testimony to be categorical, spontaneous and convincing. Both courts gave more weight to Amelia's positive testimony, as against the denial of appellant. On the matter of credibility of witnesses, the Court generally accords respect and even finality to the findings of the lower courts. Hence, unless appellant shows that some substantial fact had been overlooked or misconstrued that would change the outcome of the case, the Court will affirm the findings of the lower courts. Here, appellant failed to cite any compelling reason for the Court to reverse the findings below.
ACCORDINGLY, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 00578 is AFFIRMED, but with MODIFICATION of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75.000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[13]
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (designated additional member per S.O. No. 691 in lieu of Quisumbing, J., on sabbatical leave), *Diosdado M. Peralta (designated additional member per S.O. No. 711 in lieu of Brion, J., on sick leave), Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 30th day of October, 2009.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] The name of the victim and her relatives, except the appellant, have been changed in accordance with Section 29 of R.A. 7610 and Section 44 of R..A. 9262.
[2] TSN, March 5, 2003, pp. 4-8.
[3] TSN, June 17, 2004, pp. 5-7.
[4] Exhibit "C".
[5] Exhibit-'D'7.
[6] CA rollo, pp. 67-68.
[7] Id. at 60.
[8] Rollo, pp. 13-14.
[9] Id. at 9.
[10] Id. at 11-12.
[11] Id. at 10-11.
[12] People v. Montnola, G.R. No. 178061, January 31. 2008, 543 SCRA 412. 426.
[13] People v. Abulon, G.R. No. 174473, August 17 2007. 530 SCRA 675, 705; People v. Jalbuena, G.R. No. 171163, July 4. 2007, 526 SCRA 500, 513.
* Corrected to indicate Peralta, J. as additional member per S.O. No. 711 dated 28 September 2009 vice Brion, J., who was on stick leave.
