April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 192236 : April 25, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FLORANTE V. SANTOS
G.R. No. 192236 (People of the Philippines v. Florante V. Santos) - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Florante V. Santos (appellant), from the 19 February 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03534.[1]
The RTC Ruling
In its 02 September 2008 judgment,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 68, convicted appellant of two (2) counts of rape[3] committed against a 15 year-old girl, AAA, on 05 and 06 January 2006. It observed AAA to be suffering from mental deficiency[4] and despite such condition the RTC found that she remained steadfast in describing the sexual molestation accused did to her.[5] Thus, it found the prosecution to have successfully discharged its burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It rejected appellant's defense of denial for being weak and unsubstantiated by evidence. The RTC sentenced appellant to suffer for each count of rape the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of P75,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages.[6]
The CA Ruling
In the intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision convicting the accused. It ruled that the accused failed to prove that he was somewhere else at the time the crime took place to give credence to his alibi. The CA held that the quantum of evidence needed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt was amply borne out.[7] The CA sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also affirmed the RTC's Order that appellant pay AAA the amount of P75,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages.
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal and affirm in all respects the assailed CA Decision.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of AAA's testimony, more so in the present case, wherein the said findings were affirmed by the CA. The lone defense of alibi proffered by the accused is weak and cannot prosper to overturn his conviction. The CA correctly ruled that the accused failed to prove that he was so geographically removed from the place where the crime took place. The banana plantation where the crimes were committed was just 60 meters away from the corn plantation where the accused claims to be when the crimes happened and both are found on the same road.[8] The credible testimony of the victim and the evidence presented during trial are sufficient basis to sustain the CA's Decision that affirmed the RTC's conviction of the accused.
The RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8355, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
We also affirm the CA's imposition of the award to the victim in the amount of P75,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages because such award conform to prevailing jurisprudence.[9]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the 19 February 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR-H.C. No. 03534 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects. Appellant Florante V. Santos is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of the crime of rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as moral damages, and P50,000 as exemplary damages for each count. (Peralta, J., additional member in lieu of Reyes, J., per Raffle dated 23 April 2012)
�Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by then CA Associate (now Supreme Court) Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Francisco P. Acosta; rollo, pp. 2-11.[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Georgina D. Hidalgo in Criminal Case Nos. L-7822 to L-7824; CA rollo, pp. 17-31.
[3] See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-A, in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610, "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
[4] Rollo, p. 66.
[5] Id.
[6] Id. at 69.
[7] Id. at 9-10.
[8] CA rollo, 62.
[9] People of the Philippines v. Felipe Nachor y Omayan, G.R. No. 177779, 14 December 2010, 638 SCRA 317; People of the Philippines v. Wenceslao Deri y Benitez, G.R. No. 166566, 23 November 2010, 635 SCRA 733.