Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > January 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 188125 : January 17, 2011] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS WILFREDO BETTY Y PEREZ, APPELLANT. :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 January 2011, which reads as follows: 

G.R. No. 188125 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus WILFREDO BETTY y PEREZ, appellant.  

RESOLUTION

Accused Wilfredo Betty y Perez appeals the August 29. Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. which affirmed his conviction for five counts of rape of his daughter AAA^[2] whom he also impregnated.

The prosecution had presented AAA, her mother BBB, and Dr. Emmanuel Simeon. Their testimonies established that appellant successfully inserted his penis into AAA's vagina on five separate occasions despite her protestations. The first rape happened in their residence on December 27, 1997, when she was only 17 years old. On the said date, at around 8:00 in the evening, appellant brought AAA to the kalaan  or a grassy place with many big trees. There, he threatened her with a fan knife and managed to rape her. Afterwards, he threatened to kill her if she told anybody about the incident so she kept silent about it. A few days later, or on December 30, 1997 at around 9:00 in the evening, appellant raped AAA a second time in a river at Barangay Sumulong, Calauag, Quezon. Appellant told AAA that they were just going to catch crabs, something they had been doing since AAA was still young, but instead of catching crabs, appellant raped AAA while they were standing in the water. The third rape happened in February 1998 while the fourth rape happened in March 1998, around 10:00 in the morning while they were in Barangay Sumulong. As with the second rape, the fourth rape also took place in the river. AAA was raped one last time on July 24, 1998 at around 8:00 in the evening, while appellant and AAA were in a river near their residence to catch crabs. This time, AAA mustered enough courage to report the rape incidents. BBB found out on July 25, 1998, that AAA was pregnant so AAA was forced to report the rape incidents. They then reported the incident to the Philippine National Police Station in Calauag.

In the face of prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial. Appellant claimed that AAA charged him with rape for he slapped her several times in private when he learned that she was pregnant.

On July 26, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, of Calauag, Quezon, convicted appellant of five counts of rape.^[3] The CA affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the sentence to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and ordered appellant to pay AAA civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 for each count of rape.^[4]

The CA held that other than his claim of denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. The CA noted that the evidence for the prosecution had established his guilt for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The CA stated that the RTC found that AAA's testimony was straightforward and credible. Even after rigid cross-examination, the defense failed to demolish AAA's testimony and she stood firm on her declaration that appellant raped her five times. The CA further held that appellant's imputation of ill motive was untenable, because as correctly found by the RTC, it was unthinkable for AAA to hurl serious charges of rape against her own just because he slapped her several times.

After a careful review of the evidence in this case and the submissions, we find no compelling reason to overturn the findings of the CA and to reverse appellant's conviction. Well settled is the rule 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 unless there appears some fact or circumstance which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would change the result of the case. This is so because the trial court judge had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.^[5] Here, there appears no showing that the trial court and the CA overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated any fact or circumstance which negates appellant's conviction. AAA testified in a straightforward and categorical manner that appellant raped her five times on different occasions. Furthermore, her testimony meets the test of credibility.

However, as regards the amount of exemplary damages, the same should be increased to P30,000 for each count of rape, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.^[6]

WHEREFORE,  the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated August 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02194 finding appellant Wilfredo Betty y Perez guilty of five counts of rape is AFFIRMED.

With costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

  Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
  Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 4-14. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Normandie B. Pizarro concurring.

^[2] Pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, and Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" the real names and personal circumstances of the victims as well as any other information tending to establish or compromise their identities or those of their immediate family or household members are withheld. Fictitious initials and appellations are used instead to represent them. 

^[3] CA rollo, pp. 51-61. 

^[4] Rollo, p. 13. 

^[5] People v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 682, 696-697, citing People v. Belga, G.R. No. 129769, January 19, 2001, 349 SCRA 678, 684-685 and People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547. 

^[6] People v. Dimanawa, G.R. No. 184600, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 770, 783.