l\epubltt of tbe
s;upreme QCourt
;Manila
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R. No. 188849
-versus-
JONATHAN "UTO" VELOSO y
Present:
SERENO, CJ,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
REYES,JJ
Promulgated:
RAMA,
Accused-Appellant. FEB 1 3f...-----
)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -)(
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,[.:
Before this Court is an appeal of the March 30, 2009 Decision
1
of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03132
2
affirming with
modification the March 6, 2007 Decision
3
of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 20, Naga City in Crim. Case Nos. RTC'02-0102-A and RTC
2002-0103, entitled People of the Philippines v. Jonathan "Uta" Veloso y
Rama, which found appellant Jonathan Veloso guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of two counts of rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code for violating AAA,
4
a 12-year old minor.
Rollo, pp. 2-15; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario with Associate Justices Estela
Perlas-Bemabe (now a member of the Court) and Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo, concurring.
Entitled People of the Philippines v. Jonathan "Uto" Veloso y Ram a.
CA rolla, pp. 10-29; penned by Presiding Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer.
People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and Resolution in A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated
September 19, 2006 mandates that the Court shall use fictitious initials in lieu of the real names of
the victim/s and immediate family members other than the accused, and delete the exact addresses
of the victim to protect the privacy of the victim and their relatives. This policy is in line with Sec.
29 of Republic Act No. 7610, Sec. 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, and Sec. 40, Rule on Violence
Against Women and their Children.
DECISION 2 G.R. No. 188849
On April 6, 2002, the following informations were filed against
appellant by AAAs mother, BBB, acting on her behalf:
Criminal Case No. RTC02-0102-A
5
That on or about April 4, 2002, in the City of Naga, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
[appellant], by means of force and intimidation, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], a
minor, 12 years old, daughter of herein private complainant, against her
will, to her damage and prejudice.
Criminal Case No. RTC02-0103
6
That on or about April 4, 2002, in the City of Naga, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
[appellant], by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], a
minor, 12 years old, daughter of herein private complainant, against her
will, to her damage and prejudice.
In addition, appellant was also charged with two other offenses: rape
by sexual assault
7
under Criminal Case No. RTC 2002-0104 and frustrated
homicide
8
under Criminal Case No. RTC 2002-0106.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to all the crimes
charged.
9
After pre-trial was conducted, the cases were consolidated and
trial ensued.
The following facts are culled from the respective records and
decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals.
In order to establish its case, the prosecution presented the testimonies
of Oscal Boral (Boral), a neighbor of BBB and appellant, Dr. Adelwisso
J esus Badong, J r., Dr. Mayvelyn Talag, BBB, and AAA.
5
Records, Vol. 1, p. 1.
6
Records, Vol. 2, p. 1.
7
Criminal Case No. RTC 2002-0104 (CA rollo, p. 11).
That on or about April 4, 2002, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant] by means of force and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSUALT against the
person of [AAA], a minor, 12 years old, daughter of herein private complainant by then and there
inserting his finger into her vagina, against her will, to the damage and prejudice.
8
Criminal Case No. RTC 2002-0106 (CA rollo, pp. 11-12).
That on or about April 4, 2002, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], with intent to kill, without any justifiable cause or
motive, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously beat, assault, kick and strangle
[AAA], a minor, 12 years old, daughter of the herein complaining witness, [BBB], who as a result
thereof, suffered various injuries in the different parts of her body and which strangulation
ordinarily would have caused the death of [AAA], thus, performing all the acts of execution which
should have produced the crime of homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it
by reason or causes independent of his will, that is, by the timely rescue of said [AAA] which
prevented her death, to her damage and prejudice.
9
Records, Vol. 1, pp. 22-23.
.
DECISION 3 G.R. No. 188849
On the other hand, appellant served as the lone witness in his defense.
On April 4, 2002, at around 12:00 noon, appellant went looking for
BBBs brother. He went to BBBs house asking her to accompany him to
her brothers house. Since BBB was indisposed, she declined. Appellant
then insisted that AAA, BBBs daughter, accompany him instead. BBB
consented. Thus, AAA with CCC, BBBs nephew, left the house with
appellant. Instead of taking a padyak or tricycle, appellant opted to take a
boat. It was while they were in the middle of the river that appellant
threatened to hit CCC with a paddle if he would not jump off the boat.
Immediately after CCC jumped off the boat, appellant steered the boat
towards the riverbank and pulled AAA out of the boat. Thereafter, appellant
made AAA lie in the water lily- and grass-covered banks and proceeded to
violate her, all the while threatening to drown her. AAA tried to fight
appellant but was unsuccessful. After satisfying his lust twice, appellant
boxed AAA on her face, lips, stomach and thighs. Appellant kicked AAA
on the stomach, slapped and smashed her face to the ground, and choked her
until she became unconscious.
Boral found a conscious but dazed, naked, and bloodied AAA along
the grassy portion of the riverbank. He shouted and called for BBB. Upon
BBBs arrival, she saw her daughters state. She asked AAA what
happened. AAA, however, could only say Uto. BBB then covered AAAs
body with a shirt and brought her to a nearby hospital where she was advised
to proceed to Bicol Medical Center. There, AAA was examined by Dr.
Adelwisso J esus Badong, J r. and Dr. Mayvelyn Talag. The findings of the
physical examination
10
of AAA dated April 4, 2002 at 2:35 p.m., are as
follows:
The following lesions/findings were noted:
Surgery notes:
Multiple abrasions secondary to Rape/Mauling
R/O Blunt Abdominal Injury
OB notes:
NOI: Alleged Rape
TOI: 1 pm
POI: Riverside, Sabang, Naga City
DOI: 4-04-02
Findings:
Grossly normal-looking external genetalia; (+) intact
fourchette
(+)Hyperemic borders of hymen
(+)Superficial, hyperemic laceration at 4 oclock position
Admits one finger with ease
10
Id. at 106.
DECISION 4 G.R. No. 188849
In his defense, appellant said that on April 4, 2002 he went to Pili,
Camarines Sur to attend a birthday party with his cousin Francisco Rama.
He left his house at 9:00 a.m. He arrived in Pili at 10:00 a.m. and returned
to his house at 3:00 p.m. Upon his return, he was arrested by police officers
on the charge of rape filed by BBB. On cross-examination, he admitted that
he went to his neighbor, BBBs house, in the morning of April 4, 2002 to
ask about the whereabouts of BBBs brother.
After considering the evidence presented by both parties, the RTC
rendered the March 6, 2007 Decision finding appellant guilty of the crime of
rape, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premise in the foregoing (sic), [appellant]
J onathan Uto Veloso is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape as charged in Criminal Case Nos. RTC 2002-0102-A and
RTC 2002-0103 and sentenced him (sic) to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA for each case.
[Appellant] is hereby ordered to pay the victim as follows:
1. One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as moral
damages for two (2) counts of rape;
2. One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as civil
indemnity for two (2) counts of rape;
3. Seventy Thousand (P70,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages
for two (2) counts of rape; and
4. To pay the costs.
With respect to Criminal Case No. RTC 2002-0104, [appellant] is
hereby ACQUITTED due to insufficiency of evidence. In Criminal Case
No. RTC 2002-0106, the case is hereby ordered DISMISSED the same
having been absorbed in Criminal Case Nos. RTC 2002-0102-A and RTC
2002-0103, all for rape.
11
Appellant filed his notice of appeal on March 21, 2007.
12
The Court of Appeals in its March 30, 2009 Decision found no merit
in the appeal, taking note of the injuries that AAA sustained and the fact that
she was 12 years old at the time of the incident. It found AAA to be a
credible witness and stressed that the gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances provided by law.
13
It
further noted that the defense of alibi interposed by appellant was never
corroborated. He even admitted to being in BBBs house in the morning of
April 4, 2002. The Court of Appeals, thus, affirmed the findings of the trial
court but modified the award of damages by deleting exemplary damages
11
CA rollo, p. 29.
12
Records, Vol. 1, pp. 169-170.
13
Rollo, p. 12.
DECISION 5 G.R. No. 188849
due to the lack of any aggravating circumstance to justify its award, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Naga City (Branch 20), dated 6 March 2007, in Criminal Cases Nos.
RTC 2002-0102-A and RTC 2002-0103, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is DELETED.
14
Appellant filed his notice of appeal before this Court on April 7,
2009.
15
Both the Office of the Solicitor General and appellant manifested that
they would adopt the pleadings filed in the Court of Appeals in lieu of
supplemental briefs.
16
Appellants lone assignment of error is stated as follows:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING [APPELLANT]
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES
CHARGED.
17
Appellant argues that AAAs testimony that she was made to lie down
on a water lily and thereafter raped her was improbable since it was
impossible for the water lily to have supported their combined weights.
Moreover, appellant questions AAAs non-resistance to the rape except by
kicking. Lastly, appellant claims that the time of the physical examination
preceded that of the rape incident. Thus, appellant claims that due to the
inconsistencies in AAAs testimonies, his guilt for the crimes charged was
not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
The appeal must be dismissed for lack of merit.
The applicable law in this case is Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code, which states that:
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. Rape is committed
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority;
14
Id. at 14.
15
Id. at 16-18.
16
Id. at 32-35 and 36-39.
17
Id. at 52.
DECISION 6 G.R. No. 188849
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present.
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned
in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
We have often reiterated the jurisprudential principle of affording
great respect and even finality to the trial courts assessment of the
credibility of witnesses. The trial judge is the one who hears the testimony
of the witnesses presented firsthand and sees their demeanor and body
language. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if the witnesses
are telling the truth being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting
testimonies.
18
We also have stated that:
Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if
considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be
respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor
of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule
finds an even more stringent application where said findings are
sustained by the [Court of Appeals].
19
(Citation omitted, emphasis
added.)
In dealing with cases for rape, this Court has often acknowledged that
there is often a want of witnesses. In People v. Dion,
20
this Court said that:
Due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of
witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself.
Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the victims credibility becomes the
primordial consideration. It is settled that when the victims testimony is
straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant
inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis thereof. Inconsistencies in the victims
testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the
inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential
fact of the commission of rape. The trial courts assessment of the
witnesses credibility is given great weight and is even conclusive and
binding. x x x. (Citations omitted, emphasis added.)
In the present case, defendant argues that AAAs testimony is
improbable, especially her testimony under cross-examination where she
stated that appellant placed her on top of a water lily floating on the water.
We agree with the Court of Appeals when it said:
Contrary to appellants submission, however, a careful scrutiny of the
records would show that the water lilies on which AAA was made to lie
18
People v. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 506, 523.
19
Id.
20
G.R. No. 181035, J uly 4, 2011, 653 SCRA 117, 133.
DECISION 7 G.R. No. 188849
down were on the riverbank and not on the river. x x x.
21
As AAA herself testified:
Q: Was there any unusual incident that happened while you were
riding on the boat?
A: When we were at the middle of the river, [appellant] forced [CCC]
to jump into the river.
Q: Did your cousin [CCC] [jump] into the river?
A: Yes, because he was threatened that if he will not jump into the
river [appellant] will strike him with a paddle.
Q: After [CCC] jumped into the river, what happened next?
A: He brought me to the riverbank which was grassy and filled with
water lilies.
Q: While on that situation, what else happened?
A: [CCC] forced me to get out of the boat and he started to kiss my
lips and he removed my clothes.
Q: [D]id you not resist on what he was doing to you?
A: I resisted but I could not because he threatened to drown me.
22
The RTC remarked upon the demeanor of AAA when she took the
witness stand in the following manner:
[AAAs] testimony during the trial was straightforward, candid,
clear and consistent. She was not moved nor cowed by the peroration of
the cross-examiner. Her answers were direct and concise. She was
unmoved by the slings and arrows of her misfortune. She was bold,
determined and credible. The defense never broke her, in fact her answers
enhanced her will to correct a wrong, her quest for the protective mantle of
the law and her passion to punish the [appellant].
23
We agree with the Court of Appeals when it found that the records
show that AAA made attempts to resist the advances of appellant. The
records would reveal that she tried to kick and stave appellants attack.
However, appellants strength proved to be too much for AAA to fend off.
We note that at the time of the occurrence of the rape, AAA was only 12
years of age. Appellant in contrast was a grown man of twenty-five.
24
As
we have ruled in People v. Salazar
25
:
In a litany of cases, this Court has ruled that the testimonies of
child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence. Reason and
experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex
and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape,
if what she claims is not true. Her candid narration of how she was raped
21
Rollo, p. 11.
22
TSN, September 24, 2004, p. 5.
23
CA rollo, p. 24.
24
TSN, March 15, 2005, p. 2.
25
G.R. No. 181900, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 307, 318-319.
DECISION 8 G.R. No. 188849
bears the earmarks of credibility, especially if no ill will -- as in this case -
- motivates her to testify falsely against the accused. It is well-settled that
when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she
says in effect all that is required to prove the ravishment. The accused may
thus be convicted solely on her testimony -- provided it is credible,
natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things.
In any event, we have held that the law does not impose a burden on
the rape victim to prove resistance. What has to be proved by the
prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having
sexual intercourse with the victim.
26
We also note that appellant did not introduce any evidence other than
his own testimony where he presented an alibi. This Court has in a long line
of cases consistently held that:
Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and
highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear
and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs
criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was
committed. Since alibi is a weak defense for being easily fabricated, it
cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive
identification by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the
crime.
27
(Citations omitted.)
Here, appellant claims that he, together with his cousin, was in Pili,
Camarines Sur at the time of the incident. He hinges his claim on the
testimony of Dr. Badong wherein the doctor testified that he had examined
AAA at 11:00 a.m.
28
However, the medical certificate, which is the best
evidence, clearly shows that AAA was actually examined by Dr. Badong at
2:35 p.m.
29
Besides appellant failed to present his cousin to buttress this
claim. Moreover, he in fact admitted that he had visited the dwelling of
BBB in the morning of April 4, 2002.
30
In any event, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA do
not detract from her credibility as a witness. Rape victims are not expected
to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful
that they might in fact be trying to obliterate it from their memory. Thus, a
few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the
testimony of the offended party.
31
26
People v. Adlawan, Jr., G.R. Nos. 100917-18, J anuary 25, 1993, 217 SCRA 489, 498.
27
People v. Arpon, supra note 18 at 529.
28
TSN, J anuary 9, 2003, p. 9.
29
Records, Vol. 1, p. 106.
30
TSN, February 22, 2006, p. 6.
31
People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 753, 762.
DECISION 9 G.R. No. 188849
We, however, cannot agree with the Court of Appeals regarding its
deletion of exemplary damages. This Court has said in People v. Alfredo
32
:
Nevertheless, by focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal basis
for the grant of exemplary damages -- taking into account simply the
attendance of an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime,
courts have lost sight of the very reason why exemplary damages are
awarded. Catubig is enlightening on this point, thus
Also known as punitive or vindictive damages,
exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a
deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of
undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an
injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous
conduct. These terms are generally, but not always, used
interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the
use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for
injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and
humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that
has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory
being that there should be compensation for the hurt caused
by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant --
associated with such circumstances as willfulness,
wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness,
oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud -- that intensifies
the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are
often used to refer to those species of damages that may be
awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous
conduct. In either case, these damages are intended in good
measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from
similar conduct in the future.
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be
awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also
where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or
outrageous conduct of the offender. In much the same way as Article 2230
prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article
2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award. x x x
Recently, in People of the Philippines v. Cristino Caada, People of the
Philippines v. Pepito Neverio and The People of the Philippines v.
Lorenzo Layco, Sr., the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public
example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth,
and to protect the latter from sexual abuse.
It must be noted that, in the said cases, the Court used as basis
Article 2229, rather than Article 2230, to justify the award of exemplary
damages. Indeed, to borrow J ustice Carpio Morales' words in her separate
opinion in People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par, [t]he
application of Article 2230 of the Civil Code strictissimi juris in such
cases, as in the present one, defeats the underlying public policy behind
the award of exemplary damages -- to set a public example or correction
for the public good. (Citation and emphases omitted.)
32
G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 749, 767-768.
DECISION 10 G.R. No. 188849
Thus, we reinstate the RTC award for exemplary damages which
should be Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) for each count ofrape.
33
In addition, and in conformity with current policy, we also impose on
all the monetary awards for damages interest at the legal rate of 6% per
annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
34
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The March 30, 2009
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03132 is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellant Jonathan "Uto" Veloso
is GUlL TY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of RAPE as
defined in Article 266-A and penalized in Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code. Appellant is ordered to pay AAA the following for each count
of rape: civil indemnity of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), moral
damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), and exemplary damages of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), and all monetary awards for damages
shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of
this Decision until fully paid.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
~ ~ l v ~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
33
34
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
People v. Delabajan and Lascanu, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 859, 868.
People v. Dian, supra note 20 at 138.
DECISION 11 G.R. No. 188849
~ V I I L A
Associate Justi......_--
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
