G.R. No. 188849 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JONATHAN "UTO" VELOSO Y RAMA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premise in the foregoing (sic), [appellant] Jonathan 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: One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as moral damages for two (2) counts of rape; One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity for two (2) counts of rape; Seventy Thousand (P70,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages for two (2) counts of rape; and 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 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