G.R. No. 243987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BBB, ACCUSED-.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , judgment is tendered declaring accused [BBB] guilty beyond reasonable doubt in all these three (3) cases and is penalized as follows: For Criminal Case No. 12493 for Violation of Section 5(i), R.A. 9262, to suffer the indeterminate sentence of TWO (2) years and ONE (1) day to FOUR (4) years and TWO (2) months of prision correcional . In addition, accused shall pay a FINE of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and he shall undergo mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the Court. In this connection, the jail authorities is [sic] directed to make the necessary arrangement for the compliance of this directive by R.A. 9262. For Criminal Case No. 12605, for Rape, to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all its accessory penalties and to pay the private complainant [AAA], civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P30,000.00. For Criminal Case No. 12606, for Rape, to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all its accessory penalties and to pay the private complainant [CCC], civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P30,000.00. The detention of the accused since May 4, 2004 shall be credited to all his sentence. [16] (Emphasis in the original) BBB appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that DDD reported the crime to get rid of him so she could go to another man. [17] He asserted that Bornia's testimony should have been given more weight since Bornia was able to testify that accused-appellant was not in Zamboanga del Norte on December 10, 1999 and that they had a business meeting on the night of March 30, 2004. [18] In its assailed Decision, [19] the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court with modification. It found that the testimonies of the victims were credible and convincing. [20] It gave no merit to BBB's defense that he was serving in the Army in Sulu on December 10, 1999 as he failed to produce any evidence to prove this. It likewise found that his mere denial that that he did not rape CCC was weak when weighed with the clear and convincing testimony of the victim. [21] The Court of Appeals, however, modified the penalty for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, in view of Quimvel v. People , [22] as well as the amount of damages awarded, in view of People v. Jugueta . [23] The dispositive portion the Court of Appeals' Decision read: WHEREFORE , foregoing premises considered this ordinary appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The 01 December 2016 Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Dipolog City, in Criminal Case Nos. 12493, 12605 and 12606 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION . Appellant [redacted] is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) Counts of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, in relation to R.A. No. 7160 . Accordin