Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 184608 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus DANN MORALES, appellant.

RESOLUTION

This is an appeal from the March 31, 2008 Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02578 affirming appellant's conviction for four counts of rape of minor AAA^[2], who was only thirteen (13) years old when the crimes were committed.

Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts. AAA appellant knew each other as she took care of her second cousin's baby with appellant from September to December 2003. AAA lived with her father some ten (10) meters away from where appellant and his wife were staying. On January 4, 2004 at around eight o' clock in the evening, while AAA was on her way home after working late in their vegetable farm, appellant suddenly appeared and grabbed AAA's right hand. Appellant covered AAA's mouth and brandished a knife to prevent her from shouting. He pulled AAA into his house and tied her hands with a handkerchief. Then, appellant sniffed rugby while guarding the door. Afterwards, he removed AAA's pants and panty and then his own pants and brief. He inserted his penis into AAA's vagina and AAA felt pain. When he was done, appellant warned AAA not to report the incident to anyone or else he will kill her.

In the evening of May 22, 2004, appellant raped AAA three more times. AAA was then staying in the house of her father's half brother which was only four kilometers away from AAA's house. On the said night, appellant and a certain Junjun grabbed AAA while AAA was fetching water, and pulled AAA inside a shanty owned by appellant's godmother. Then, appellant ordered Junjun to leave them alone. While brandishing a knife, appellant tied AAA's hands with a handkerchief and sniffed rugby. After that, appellant removed his and AAA's clothes and then he inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. He repeated his sexual assault of AAA shortly thereafter and then dressed AAA up and told her to sleep. AAA dozed off but was awakened when appellant raped her again. After that, appellant let AAA leave with a warning that he would kill her if she revealed to anyone what happened to her. Since AAA's uncle was not in the house when she came home, AAA did not confide the incident to her aunt and cousins. It was only when her uncle returned in the first week of June 2004 that AAA told him that appellant raped her.

In the face of prosecution's evidence, appellant did not even bother to raise the defense of denial since he escaped from the provincial jail on March 28, 2006 but was recaptured in June 2006.

On November 16, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, of Bontoc, Mountain Province, promulgated its decision^[3] finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of rape. The trial court sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties and ordered him to pay AAA civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count of rape. The RTC found that there was no uncertainty at all with regard to the identification of appellant by AAA. The trial court observed that the testimony of AAA was straightforward and deserving of credence. It did not believe that AAA fabricated her charges against appellant as she was only thirteen (13) years old and was an unsophisticated barrio girl. The RTC also found nothing on record to show that AAA had an ulterior or evil motive to testify against appellant.

On appeal, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction. Hence, appeal.

We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to reverse appellant's conviction. Nothing in the records shows that the CA committed any reversible error either in its findings of fact or its conclusions of law. It has been consistently held that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality, unless there appears some fact or circumstance of weight 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.^[4] As there is no showing in this case that the trial court or the CA overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated any significant facts and circumstances which will change the result of the case, we do not find cogent reason to deviate from the aforesaid rule.

But as regards the award of damages, however, this Court deems a modification proper and directs appellant to pay AAA exemplary damages in addition to the award of civil indemnity and moral damages. In line with current jurisprudence, exemplary damages in the amount of P3O,GOG.OO should be awarded in favor of the private offended party where the rape was aggravated by the use of deadly weapon (a knife).^[5]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated March 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02578 finding appellant Dann Morales guilty of four counts of rape is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is hereby also ordered to pay AAA exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 for each count of rape in addition to the award of civil indemnity and moral damages.

With costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.  

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2-23. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Vicente Q. Roxas 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. 13-25. 

^[4] 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. 

^[5] People v. Guillermo, G.R. No. 177138, January 26, 2010, 611 SCRA 169,178.