September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 191363 : September 07, 2011]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS RONALD AFALLA, APPELLANT.<BR><BR>RESOLUTION
G.R. No. 191363 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus RONALD AFALLA, appellant.
On appeal is the August 12, 2009 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03331 which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, of Cabarroguis, Quirino convicting appellant of the crime of rape of AAA[3], who was only six years old when the crime was committed.cralaw
The prosecution proved the following facts: On February 14, 2005, at around 10:30 in the morning, appellant, the live-in partner of AAA's older sister, fetched AAA from school and told her that they will get a bike in Barangay Dagupan. On the way, they passed by a cornfield where appellant suddenly strangled and punched AAA, removed her clothes and raped her. AAA felt pain in her vagina when appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. Afterwards, she lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness, appellant was no longer around. Prosecution witness Jose Gamay, who was on his way home after working at his farm, saw AAA at around eleven o'clock that morning. AAA was then running towards him. She was naked from the waist down and was muddy, with remnants of grass on her hands. Her face was bloodied and she had blood on her private parts. Upon examination by the Municipal Health Officer, it was found that there is a tear in AAA's hymen located at six o'clock position and minimal bleeding in her private parts which could have been caused by forceful sexual intercourse. The vaginal smear, however, found no sperm cells on AAA's genitals. There were also abrasions on her forehead and right cheek, and contusions and hematoma on both her eyes and upper lips, which may have been caused by blunt trauma or blow. Hyperemic pressure marks were also found on the inner part of AAA's left thigh, which marks the Municipal Health Officer opined could have been caused by a hand or anything hard pressing against it.cralaw
Appellant, for his part, did not raise any defense despite having been informed of his right to present evidence.
On April 1, 2008, the RTC rendered its decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court likewise ordered him to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. The CA affirmed appellant's conviction.cralaw
Appellant now questions the RTC's appreciation of AAA's testimony. He claims that AAA failed to narrate the details of how she was raped. Also, he puts emphasis on the fact that the vaginal smear was negative for sperm cells.cralaw
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 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 AAA's testimony meets the test of credibility.[4] The Court notes that AAA's testimony was very clear on the events that transpired and she was unwavering in her decrying appellant as the person who raped her. Her testimony was further corroborated by the Municipal Health Officer's finding of lacerations in AAA's hymen, bolstering the finding that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA who was below 12 years of age. Additionally, it is long settled that the absence of spermatozoa does not negate rape for the slightest penetration of the female organ is enough. Thus, it is of no moment that appellant's sperm was not found in AAA's vagina, his guilt for the crime of rape having been fully established already.cralaw
However, as regards the amount of damages, a modification is in order. In accord with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of exemplary damages should be increased to P30,000 which is awarded to serve as an example to deter persons with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing very young children.cralaw [5]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The August 12, Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CR-H.C. No. 03331 finding appellant Ronald Afalla guilty of the crime AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amount of exemplary damages is increased to P30,000.00.cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Japar B. Dimaampao concurring.[2] CA rollo, pp. 12-15. Penned by Judge Moises M. Pardo.
[3] Per People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the victim's name, personal circumstances and other details which tend to establish or compromise her identity are withheld to protect her privacy.
[4] See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 281.
[5] See People v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 185206, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 437, 449-450.cralaw
