People v. Avelino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Ernesto Avelino, Jr. y Gracillian, was charged with rape in relation to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610. The Information alleged that sometime in May 2006, in Caloocan City, the accused, with lewd design and by means of force, threats, and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal knowledge of AAA, a mental retardate, a minor, and 15 years of age, against her will and without her consent. The victim and her family had been renting a house adjacent to the appellant's family. The victim testified that while putting the appellant's son to sleep in the appellant's house, she was prevented from leaving by the appellant, who was armed with a knife. The appellant threatened to kill her family, undressed her, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. He again threatened her with the knife not to tell her parents. The incident came to light when the victim became pregnant and her family learned about the rape. A medico-legal report indicated clear evidence of blunt force or penetrating trauma and a shallow healed laceration in the victim's hymen, consistent with penetration by an erect penis. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 131, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with ordered payment of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification, increasing the exemplary damages. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant assailed the CA's decision, arguing that the RTC erred in convicting him based on the victim's alleged inconsistent testimony, in failing to consider his defense of denial, and in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of the penalty provided for in Section 5 of RA 7610.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of rape and whether or not the victim's testimony was credible. Whether or not the defense of denial is tenable against the victim's positive identification. Whether or not RA 7610 is the applicable law, or the Revised Penal Code. Whether or not the amounts of civil indemnity and damages should be modified.
Ruling
The appeal is DISMISSED. The August 31, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07543 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Ernesto Avelino, Jr. y Gracillian is ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, all to earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the appellant and the credibility of the victim's testimony: The Court found no cogent reason to reverse the CA's affirmation of the RTC's ruling. Both lower courts correctly found that all elements of rape were established, specifically that the appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent and through force, threat, and intimidation with the use of a knife. The Court upheld the findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, that AAA's testimony was credible. It is settled jurisprudence that the RTC's findings on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect and should not be overturned on appeal unless there is a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances. The victim's testimony categorically identified the appellant as her rapist, and no evidence was adduced to show ill motive for her to falsely charge the appellant. On the defense of denial: The appellant's defense of denial was found untenable. As held by the CA and affirmed by the Supreme Court, denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the victim identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. The Court upheld the CA's ruling that the victim's positive and categorical testimony should prevail against the appellant's bare denial. On the applicability of RA 7610 versus the Revised Penal Code: The Court ruled that RA 7610 is inapplicable in this case. The said law governs criminal cases where victims are children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse. In this case, AAA was not an exploited child who indulged in sexual intercourse for money or profit, nor was she coerced or influenced by an adult to do so. Given that AAA was not a child exploited in prostitution, the penalty provided for under RA 7610 does not apply. Therefore, the RTC correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua provided under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code for the crime of simple rape. On the modification of damages: The Court found it necessary to modify the amounts of civil indemnity and damages. In line with recent jurisprudence, in rape cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the Court has upgraded the amounts of civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, and exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00. These monetary awards are to earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.
Main Doctrine
The positive and categorical testimony of the victim identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the crime of rape prevails over the bare denial of the accused. The credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial court, and its findings are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal.