People V Galuga
People V Galuga
People V Galuga
DECISION
HERNANDO , J : p
Challenged in this appeal is the Decision dated June 9, 2015 1 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05592, which a rmed with modi cation the Decision 2
dated November 15, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19 of Cauayan City,
Isabela, in Criminal Case No. 19-1972, nding accused-appellant Renato Galuga y Wad-
as guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against AAA. 3
Accused-appellant was charged before the RTC with violating Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, and further amended
by R.A. No. 8353, in relation with R.A. No. 7610, Article III, Section 5, paragraph b, in an
Information 4 that reads:
That on or about the 16th of April, 2002, in the municipality of x x x,
province of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd
designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lay with, and
have carnal knowledge [of] one [AAA], a minor girl of 12 years of age, thereby
subjecting her to exploitation and sexual abuse, against her will and consent.
With the aggravating circumstance, that the victim [AAA], is a minor
below 18 years of age, during the commission of the crime. CAIHTE
When AAA's mother, BBB, arrived at the police station, she asked AAA what
happened but she did not respond. Only when a lady police o cer arrived did AAA
disclose that she was raped by accused-appellant.
On the other hand, the defense presented the accused-appellant himself,
accused-appellant's live-in partner, Realyn Acosta (Acosta), and Teddy Santos (Santos)
as witnesses.
According to the evidence for the defense, accused-appellant was on his way
home from work on April 16, 2002 when he saw AAA crying beside a fountain at the
public park. Accused-appellant asked AAA to come with him to N's Restaurant, which
was just across the fountain. She agreed and went with him. She then asked him to buy
bread because she was hungry. However, after a few minutes, AAA's father and his two
companions arrived and suddenly boxed accused-appellant. Thereafter, accused-
appellant was brought to the municipal police station. Acosta and Santos both testi ed
that many people go to the park at night since there are several mini-stores and
eateries in the area.
On November 15, 2011, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting accused-
appellant for the crime of rape.
The RTC found that AAA testi ed in open court in a straightforward and
unequivocal manner and positively identi ed accused-appellant as the one who raped
her. AAA also willingly pursued the case for three years just to nish her testimony in
court despite the lengthy delay in the proceedings caused by the defense. The trial
court gave greater weight to AAA's testimony as no woman would be willing to undergo
a public trial, along with the shame, humiliation, and dishonor of exposing her own
degradation. The fact that the doctor who allegedly examined her failed to testify in
court did not destroy the prosecution's case against accused-appellant.
Moreover, the RTC adjudged that accused-appellant's denial and his self-serving
assertions could not overcome AAA's a rmative, categorical, and convincing
testimony. Also, accused-appellant did not deny the fact that he was with AAA during
the incident which made the testimonies of defense witnesses Acosta and Santos
inconsequential.
The fallo of the RTC judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered nding the accused RENATO
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
GALUGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for
parole and to pay complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as moral
damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages. 6
Accused-appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals.
In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals denied accused-appellant's appeal.
According to the appellate court, AAA's straightforward testimony satisfactorily
established the elements of rape: AAA testi ed that the accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge of her by forcibly laying her down on the oor, inserting his penis into her
vagina, and threatening to kill her if she made a sound, and that she tried to push
accused-appellant away but did not succeed. AAA's positive testimony thus prevailed
over accused-appellant's plain denial.
The Court of Appeals ultimately a rmed with modi cation the RTC Decision
dated November 15, 2011 as follows:
ACCORDINGLY , the appeal is DENIED . The assailed Decision dated
November 15, 2011 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION . The awards of
moral damages and civil indemnity are REDUCED from P75,000.00 to
P50,000.00, each. The award of exemplary damages is INCREASED from
P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. 7 ATICcS
A: No, sir.
Q. And was he able to insert his penis [into] your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And was he still on top of you when the accused inserted his penis into
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: But did you push him all the time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So after the accused inserted his penis into your vagina, AAA, what if any
did he tell you?
A: I was crying, sir, and he threatened me that if I will make any noise he will
kill me. 1 3
The RTC found, and the Court of Appeals a rmed, that AAA's testimony was
straightforward, convincing, and consistent. Indeed, AAA described vividly how
accused-appellant de owered her and we cannot imagine how a child, as young in
years as AAA, could directly and consistently recount in open court such an ordeal,
unless she, in fact, had experienced the same. Between accused-appellant's plain denial
and AAA's categorical testimony, we give weight to the latter, especially because
accused-appellant admitted that he was actually found together with AAA in front of
N's Restaurant by AAA's father and prosecution witnesses Borja and Garlitos.
AAA could not have been compelled by a motive other than to bring to justice the
despoiler of her virtue. There was no showing that she was moved by anger or any ill
motive against accused-appellant or that she was unduly pressured or in uenced by
anyone to charge accused-appellant with the serious crime of rape. Where there is no
evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper
motive, the presumption is that he/she was not so actuated and his/her testimony is
entitled to full credence. 1 4
Relevant herein are our declarations in People v. Magtibay: 1 5
The trial court correctly gave full faith and credence to Rachelle[']s
testimony. There was no showing that Rachelle had an improper motive to
testify against accused-appellant. The non-attendance of any ill motive on the
part of Rachelle gains more weight in the light of Merlyn Magtibay[']s
description of Rachelle as a nice person. Accused-appellant also had no reason
why Rachelle would falsely accuse [him] of such serious crime as rape if she
were not motivated to bring her perpetrator to justice. Needless to say, it is
settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full
weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor,
says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape was committed.
committed Youth and immaturity are generally badges
of truth and sincerity. HSAcaE
A girl of such age as the victim would not concoct a tale of de oration,
allow the examination of her private parts, make public the offense, undergo the
trouble and humiliation of a public trial, and endure the ordeal of narrating all its
gory details, if she had not in fact been raped. If the accused-appellant had
really nothing to do with the crime, it would be against the natural order of
events and of human nature, and against the presumption of good faith, that a
prosecution witness would falsely accuse him of such a serious crime as rape.
(Emphasis ours, citations omitted.)
In an attempt to raise doubts as to the credibility of AAA's testimony, accused-
appellant points out that (a) AAA did not shout for help during the time of the incident;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
and (b) she failed to immediately inform her parents that she was raped. We have
always held that there is no standard behavior expected of rape victims. Depending on
the circumstances and their personal and emotional situation, victims react differently.
In this case, AAA explained that she was confused at the time of the incident and afraid
that if she shouted for help, accused-appellant would kill her. Also, it is not rare for
young girls to hide for some time the violation of their honor because of the threats on
their lives. 1 6 As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals:
[BBB], the victim's mother, saw her daughter at the police precinct in a
state of confusion. AAA did not respond immediately after she was asked what
happened. AAA was crying. It was only when a policewoman arrived that AAA
confessed to having been raped by appellant, in the presence of her mother.
AAA's initial silence, her state of confusion, and crying are natural reactions of a
rape victim who suffered pain, trauma and shame in appellant's brutal hands.
Besides, AAA was only a 12-year-old child at the time she got raped. Be that as it
may, different people react differently to the same situation, and not every
victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the
expectations of everyone. In any event, this matter is post facto and totally
irrelevant to the fact that appellant raped the victim. 1 7
Since accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape,
we a rm the imposition by the RTC and the Court of Appeals of the penalty of
reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. However, in line with
recent jurisprudence, 1 8 we increase the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and
exemplary damages to PhP75,000.00 each. In addition, we impose interest at the rate
of six percent (6%) per annum on all monetary awards from date of nality of this
Decision until fully paid.
As a nal matter, a pending incident in this case is accused-appellant's Letter
dated March 20, 2017, which was received by this Court on March 25, 2017, in which he
pleads for the withdrawal of his appeal, asserting that he is eligible for parole and/or
probation.
We deny accused-appellant's prayer for withdrawal of his appeal as he is
ineligible to apply for either parole or probation.
Accused-appellant, as he is sentenced herein to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, cannot apply for parole because Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 1 9 explicitly
states that "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or
whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not
be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended."
Accused-appellant is likewise disquali ed from applying for probation as Section
9 (a) of the Probation Law 2 0 is clear that the bene ts of probation shall not extend to
those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years.
Irrefragably, the sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed on accused-appellant in this
case exceeds six (6) years of imprisonment. HESIcT
SO ORDERED.
ORDERED
Peralta, Leonen, A.B. Reyes, Jr. and Carandang, * JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-19; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices
Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q.C. Sadang concurring.
3. Under Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act), Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004), its implementing rules, and A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC, the real name of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com