PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GGG

G.R. No. 224595, September 18, 2019

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (trial court), Branch 6, Dipolog City, convicting accused-appellant GGG (appellant) of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION
The prosecution presented five witnesses: (1) BBB, the mother of AAA; (2) CCC, the brother of AAA; (3) SPO4 Ronnie Quizo, the arresting officer; (4) Dr. Rolito Cataluna; and (5) Dr. Zita Adaza.

CCC, the 14-year-old brother of AAA, testified that on 28 February 2005, a party was held at their house in Dapitan City for the birthday of his brother EEE's daughter. Among those who attended the party was appellant. After dinner, he and his sister AAA slept in one of the bedrooms, which was visible from the sala where EEE and his guests, including appellant were still drinking Tanduay Rhum. The following morning, at 5:00 a.m., CCC was awakened when he felt the floor shake. CCC saw a man on top of AAA having sexual intercourse with her. AAA was gasping for breath and moaning in pain. When CCC switched on the light in the room, he saw appellant, who was only wearing a big t-shirt but no pants, about to leave the room. Appellant asked CCC for some salt and CCC told him to get some in the kitchen. CCC was scared because appellant just raped his sister. In the afternoon, CCC went to Zamboanga to report the rape incident to his mother BBB.

Dr. Cataluna then explained that the medical certificate states that AAA had lacerations in the vaginal canal which may be caused by biking, or an inserted penis, among others. He added that the result of the urinalysis conducted on AAA indicated the presence of spermatozoa in her vagina.

Dr. Zita Adaza testified that on 30 August 2006, she examined AAA and found her: (1) mentally retarded and mute; (2) totally dependent on her mother; (3) has cardiovascular problem; (4) has a very low mental classification; and (5) has a profound level of 5 which is the lowest level.

VERSION OF THE DEFENSE
Appellant alleged that in the evening of 28 February 2005, he attended the birthday party of EEE's daughter at AAA's house. The party ended at around 10:00 p.m. and he left the party with Eneria, EEE and his friends. At around 12:00 midnight, he slept in the sala of Eneria's house and woke up the following day at 10:00 a.m. Appellant admitted that he went to AAA's house to ask for salt from CCC, but he was there in the evening of 28 February 2005 and not on 1 March 2005. On cross-examination, appellant stated that Eneria's house is very near AAA's house which is only 150 meters away. Appellant admitted that he knew AAA was mute and mentally retarded.

Eneria testified that on 28 February 2005, she and appellant were at the birthday party of EEE's daughter. At around 10:00 p.m., she, her children and appellant left the party and went home to her house to sleep. Eneria testified that appellant slept in her house and that he could not have raped AAA because he stayed in her house the whole night and only left the following day.

ISSUE: Whether appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING
Denial and alibi, which are self-serving negative evidence and easily fabricated, cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive testimony of a credible witness. The victim's brother, CCC, who witnessed the rape incident, positively identified appellant as the person who raped his sister AAA. Furthermore, as found by theCA and the trial court, appellant's alibi is weak considering that Eneria's house where appellant slept is only 150 meters away from AAA's house, such that it was not impossible for appellant to go to AAA's house on the date and time of the rape incident.

However, appellant should be convicted of qualified rape pursuant to Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the RPC since the Information alleged, and it was proven, that appellant knew at the time of the commission of the crime that the victim AAA is mentally retarded.[12]

Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the RPC, as amended, provides:

ART. 266-B. Penalties. - x x x

x x x x

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

x x x x

10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

In this case, appellant admitted that he knew that AAA is mute and mentally retarded. Since appellant knew of AAA's mental disability when appellant raped her, the proper designation of the crime committed is qualified rape.

Appeal from Labor Arbiter to NLRC

G.R. No. 195109               February 4, 2015

ANDY D. HALITE, DELFIN M. ANZALDO AND MONALIZA DL. BIHASA, Petitioners,
vs.
SS VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., SUNG SIK LEE AND EVELYN RAYALA, Respondents.

An appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter. 

In a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon 

(1) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; 
(2) posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and 
(3) filing of a memorandum of appeal.

Compromise Agreement

A judgment on compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits. It has the effect of res judicata, and is immediately final and executory unless set aside because of falsity or vices of consent. The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality, even if the purpose of the modification is to correct errors of fact or law.

Gadrinab v. Salamanca

G.R. No. 194569

June 11, 2014