G.R. No. 182924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSE PEREZ @ DALEGDEG, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the accused JOSE PEREZ ALIAS DALEGDIG is hereby sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH. He is also ordered to pay the victim AAA the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto which is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape; and P75,000.00 as moral damages, even without need of proof since it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries. Further, accused is ordered to pay the cost of suit. [21] The trial court was convinced that AAA was raped by appellant on that fateful night of 19 September 1999. It accorded credence to the testimony of the victim who, at seven years old, testified in a straightforward and credible manner. She positively identified appellant as the one who committed the dastardly act to her. It found that it was inconceivable for the victim, who was six years old when the sexual assault was perpetrated, to fabricate the charge of defloration and undergo the medical examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial and tarnish her family's honor and reputation, unless she was motivated by a potent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her. The victim's testimony was further supported by the findings of the Dr. Jerry Gundayao who, upon genital examination, found lacerations in her hymen at the 6:00 o'clock and the 4:00 o'clock positions. Consistent with his findings, Dr. Gundayao concluded that AAA had lost her virginity. In addition, the trial court agreed with the findings of psychologist Shiela Chan that the victim's behavior after the incident was compatible with the behavior of a child subjected to abuse. The trial court brushed aside appellant's defenses of denial and alibi. It said that the defenses of appellant had conflicting versions. Appellant's claim that he was not at the crime scene at the time when the rape was committed was contradicted by his own father, who said that he was there and saw him handing AAA over to her father CCC. The trial court added that since the crime scene, according to appellant, was only an hour away by boat, and that appellant had access to a pump boat which he knew how to operate, it was not impossible for him to be at the locus criminis during the time in question. Inherently weak, appellant's denial must similarly fail in light of his identification by AAA. The death penalty having been imposed, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, pursuant to Our ruling in People v. Mateo , [22] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. [23] On 26 November 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the decision of the trial court by reducing the penalty imposed from capital punishment to reclusion perpetua , and by awarding exemplary damages. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE,