February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 197364 : February 01, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUIS ALIGUYON A.K.A. "AGLIPAY"
G.R. No. 197364 - (People of the Philippines v. Luis Aliguyon a.k.a. "Aglipay"). - We resolve the appeal filed, by accused Luis Aliguyon a.k.a. "Aglipay" (appellant), from the February 10, 2011 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03871,[1] The CA affirmed, with modification, the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30 of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya,[2] which found the appellant guilty of five (5) counts of statutory rape.[3]
In its January 26, 2009 decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty of raping AAA,[4] nine (9) years of age,[5] on five (5) occasions, between the months of November and December 2002. The RTC rejected the appellant's defense of denial in view of the credible and convincing testimonies given by the victim and her mother on the alleged rapes.
For each of the five (5) rapes committed, the RTC imposed upon the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, or a total amount of P250,000.00.
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the appellant's guilt on the five (5) counts of rape, but added to the awarded indemnity. The CA found AAA's testimony to be straightforward and consistent, and was corroborated by the testimony of the doctor who examined her. Also, the CA rejected the appellant's claims that the commission of the rapes in broad daylight and in public places, such as at the river and the creek, and the victim's delay in reporting the rape incidents placed doubts on or negated the rapes committed.
In addition to the RTC's award of civil indemnity, the CA awarded, for each count of rape, P50,000.00 as moral damages, or a total amount of P250,000.00, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, or a total amount P125,000.00.
Our Ruling
We affirm the decision of the CA.
After a review of the records, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. We entertain no doubt that the appellant had committed the alleged rapes against AAA. Despite the victim's delay in reporting the rape incidents, we give full credit to AAA's credible and positive testimony pointing to the appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes. A rape victim of such a young age would not concoct a story of defloration and subject herself to public humiliation if she had not, in fact, been raped.
Also, we reject the appellant's denial, as there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[6] We have consistently ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place.[7] Rape, in fact, can be committed in places where people congregate - in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping. It can even be committed in broad daylight.[8]
On the civil liabilities, we affirm the awards of moral[9] and exemplary damages, the latter of which serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, as well as to protect the latter from sexual abuse.[10] The amounts awarded are in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 10, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03871, finding the appellant guilty of five (5) counts of statutory rape is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Samuel H. Gaerlan; rollo, pp. 2-18.[2] CA rollo, pp. 8-51.
[3] Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, in relation to R.A. No. 7610.
[4] The real name of the rape victim is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her (People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.)
[5] The prosecution properly established the victim's age by presenting in court her Certificate of Live Birth.
[6] People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 326 (2004).
[7] People v. Cura, 310 Phil. 237 (1995); People v. Watimar, 392 Phil. 711, 724 (2000); and People v. Bernabe, 421 Phil. 805, 812 (2001)
[8] People v. Balora, 388 Phil. 193, 203 (2000).
[9] People v. Acala, 366 Phil. 797, 830 (1999).
[10] People v. Layco, Sr., G.R. No. 182191, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 803, 808.