G.R. No.

211604, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-

Appellee, v. DARYL POLONIO Y TUANGCAY, Accused-Appellant.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 211604, June 08, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARYL POLONIO Y

TUANGCAY, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,  J.:**

Before this Court is an appeal from the October 30, 2013 Decision 1 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04594, which affirmed the March
5, 2010 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Tagudin,
Ilocos Sur, in Criminal Case No. 870-T, finding accused-appellant Daryl
Polonio y Tuangcay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape,
sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay
the victim AAA3 Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil
indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.

The Information dated August 23, 2005 reads as

follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor accuses DARYL POLONIO y
TUANGCAY of the crime of Rape, defined under Article 266-A and penalized
under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 8353, committed as follows:

That on or about the 10th day of February 2005, in the municipality of

Cervantes, province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], a sixteen (16)-
year-old girl, by means of force and intimidation and against the latter's will
and consent.4cralawred
Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty of the crime charged in the
complaint.5 After the prosecution presented witnesses and formally offered
documentary exhibits, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence6 on the
ground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to
overcome the presumption of innocence. The accused then moved for the
dismissal of the case and the RTC submitted the matter for resolution. The
RTC denied the motion and scheduled the reception of evidence for the
defense.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

We have summarized the findings of fact from the RTC decision, which was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, below.
CCC, 58 years old, married, a maintenance employee of Bessang Pass
Memorial Hospital, testified on July 5, 2006 that he is the uncle of AAA
whose mother is his first cousin. AAA is staying with him and his wife BBB in
their house because the school where she is studying is far from
the barangay where her immediate family resides. CCC testified that AAA
was 16 years old when the alleged rape happened as evidenced by her birth
certificate showing that she was born on October 14, 1988. CCC further
testified that on February 10, 2005, he arrived in their house between 4:00
and 5:00 p.m. and was told by their neighbor Joel Caud that somebody was
at their backyard garden. Caud allegedly told CCC that he saw a person on
top of another person and the one on top was boxing the person lying on the
ground. CCC immediately proceeded to the backyard garden and saw a
person about 10 meters away in a squatting position with his two hands
raised, carrying his niece AAA who was naked below the waist. He also
noticed that while the person was carrying AAA, she appeared to be
unconscious because she was not moving. When the person noticed CCC's
presence, he ran away towards the west, still carrying AAA, but upon
reaching a fence, he threw AAA over it. CCC ran after the man but was
unable to catch him. He instead rescued AAA, gathered her panties and
shorts, and put them back on her body while she was still
unconscious.8ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

CCC asked Caud to run after the man but Caud was not able to catch him
either. CCC called Placido Pasuli, another student staying with them, to call
CCC's son for them to bring AAA to the Bessang Pass Memorial Hospital,
together with his wife BBB. CCC came to know later on, through his own
investigation on February 11, 2005, that the person he saw carrying AAA
was the accused. He positively identified the accused in open court as one
and the same person whom he saw on that afternoon carrying the
unconscious AAA without her underwear and who threw AAA over the
fence.9ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

CCC stated that AAA was hospitalized and showed medical certificates dated
February 16 and 18, 2005, which he identified in court. He noticed that while
AAA was confined in the hospital and still unconscious, she had a lump on
her head and her mouth was bloodied. CCC also identified during his
testimony the panties and shorts worn by AAA at the time of the alleged
crime.10ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Police Officer (PO) 1 Milagros Patil-ao, a Philippine National Police (PNP)

member of Quirino Police Station, testified for the prosecution on September
18, 2006 and stated that on February 10, 2005, the police station received
information from BBB that her niece AAA was found bloodied at their
backyard. Together with PO3 Cabansay, PO1 Patil-ao proceeded immediately
to the alleged crime scene, which was the backyard garden of BBB. There
PO1 Patil-ao saw AAA whose hair was disheveled and whose eyeballs
seemed to be rolling. She was carried by CCC on his back. They brought her
to Bessang Pass Memorial Hospital, about 200 meters away, for medical
treatment. A doctor and a nurse attended AAA and told the witness that AAA
had been raped. PO1 Patil-ao, together with her fellow police officers, took
the panties and short pants to be used as evidence. She noticed that the
panties had blood stains. She presented the panties and shorts during her
testimony.11 When identified in court, the underwear still had blood stains
while the shorts were full of dirt. The witness also recovered a pair of red
slippers and a piece of wood from the alleged crime scene, which became
part of the evidence for the prosecution.

AAA was already 18 years old and under the custody of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DS WD) at the time of her testimony on
January 29, 2007. She testified that when the alleged rape happened in
February 2005, she was 16 years old and studying in high school. While she
was watering the plants in her aunt's garden in the afternoon of the day the
alleged crime took place, a male person whom she did not know approached
her. When asked during direct examination if said male person was inside
the courtroom, AAA positively identified the accused. She said that the
accused clubbed her on the head three times with a piece of wood. He also
boxed her. Before she lost consciousness, to protect herself, she bit the
assailant's finger that was stuck inside her mouth. When she regained
consciousness, she was already at the Bessang Pass Memorial Hospital with
her aunt, Dr. Allan Licyayo, and her uncle. The doctor told her that she was
raped. Police officers took her statements and reduced them into writing,
which she then signed.12ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

AAA positively identified the pink shorts and panties that she was wearing
when the alleged rape happened. She said she felt ashamed, hurt, and very
angry considering that she had suffered so many injuries inflicted upon her
by accused, including the lacerations in her
vagina.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The defense presented the accused on February 17, 2009. He alleged that
on February 10, 2005, at around 10:00 in the morning, he was drinking gin
and brandy with his cousins Oliver Gascao and George Laus at a store in
Poblacion, Cervantes, Ilocos Sur. They went outside the store and continued
drinking up to 2:00 in the afternoon. While outside, two unidentified men
approached and boxed him and Gascao for no apparent reason. He was hit
on the mouth and this made him dizzy. They ran away and he took the
shortcut path leading to their place. While he was running, he allegedly met
someone at the curve and instinctively boxed that person, thinking that it
was the same person who had boxed him earlier. The person fell down. He
sat on his stomach and boxed the person again. He allegedly did not know
the gender of the person he had boxed until he later learned that she is
female. The woman pleaded with accused not to box her anymore and then
he ran away to hide at the nearby mango and bamboo clusters for about 10
to 15 minutes. He then proceeded to his uncle's house in Barangay Rosario,
Cervantes, Ilocos Sur. He later on came to know the identity of the person
he had boxed as AAA, and he also received news that AAA had been raped.
He admitted that AAA had bitten his finger and that he had it medically
examined. He denied CCC's allegations that he was on his way westward
towards a fence carrying AAA without her panties and shorts. He also denied
running away leaving his slippers. He avouched that he did not rape AAA but
he admitted that he boxed her for the reason stated
14
above. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On cross-examination, the accused stated that Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1

Casela and PO Pascua brought him to Bessang Pass Memorial Hospital to
have a personal confrontation with AAA. He admitted that Dr. Licyayo
physically examined his already infected middle finger, which was bitten by
AAA on February 10, 2005, for which he was issued a medical
certificate.15ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The prosecution recalled AAA to the witness stand on August 3, 2009 to

rebut the testimony of the accused. She denied that she was the one whom
the accused met at a curve, as she was at the garden watering the plants at
the back of her aunt's house, where the accused clubbed her three times
with apiece of wood.16ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The RTC considered this as a case where the private offended party could
not testify on the actual commission of the rape because she was rendered
unconscious at the time the alleged crime was perpetrated. Thus, the court
ruled based on circumstantial evidence under Section 4, Rule 133 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence.17 The RTC also based its decision on the
Supreme Court ruling that it is the totality or the unbroken chain of the
circumstances proved that leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the
accused.

The RTC found that the prosecution adequately established that the accused
v/as within the vicinity where the incident happened; that the accused
knocked AAA out by clubbing her thrice with a piece of wood and punching
different parts of her body; and that when she regained consciousness, she
was already at the hospital and the doctor who attended to her issued a
medical certificate showing that she sustained several injuries and the
medical findings are consistent with the fact that the panties used by the
victim had blood stains. Taken together, the circumstances established
beyond moral certainty that AAA was ravished while she was deprived of
consciousness and the accused was the one culpable for defiling her. The
pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution constitute an unbroken chain
of events which clearly points to the accused as the guilty
person.18ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The RTC held that the defenses of alibi and denial used by the accused are
self-serving and deserve scant consideration. The accused offered
explanations during his testimony that were too flimsy to be given
consideration. He did not even present his alleged two companions to
corroborate his claim that they were approached by two other men who
boxed him without provocation.19ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads as

follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations this Court finds the
accused DARYL POLONIO Y TUNGCAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA
and further order the accused to pay the victim [AAA] Seventy-Five
Thousand pesos (P75.000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages.20cralawred
The accused questioned the RTC Decision before the Court of Appeals,
assigning the following errors:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
I.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II.

ASSUMING, WITHOUT CONCEDING, THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT

INDEED SEXUALLY MOLESTED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, THE COURT A
QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
INFORMATION TO PROPERLY APPRISE HIM OF HIS OFFENSE.21cralawred
The Court of Appeals found that the appeal has no merit. We quote below
the pertinent portions of the Court of Appeals
decision:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8353, defines Rape as an act committed by a man who has
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (a)
through force, threat or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is
deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; and, (d) when the offended party
is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.

In this instance, accused-appellant admitted that he used force and

violence against the victim AAA. He testified that he boxed AAA and
when she fell, accused-appellant sat on her stomach and boxed her again. It
has also been established that when CCC saw accused-appellant carrying
AAA, the latter was unconscious and in a state of undress. It was CCC who
put back AAA's shorts and underwear on her after accused-appellant threw
her on the ground before he jumped over the fence to escape. Notably,
AAA's underwear had bloodstains, and this was seen by POl Milagros Patil-ao
at the hospital. While conducting the investigation, AAA likewise complained
to POl Patil-ao about the pain she felt in her private part. The Medical
Certificate executed by Dr. Licyayo also noted that AAA actually sustained a
laceration in her vagina at 6 o'clock position.

The categorical narration by AAA of her encounter with accused-

appellant and the physical evidence that clearly proved sexual
intercourse support the conclusion that accused-appellant did, in
fact, commit rape against AAA through force or intimidation. Force
as an element of rape is that which is needed to overpower the
resistance of the offended party and to consummate the offense. In
this case, the three (3) blows to the head with a stick and several
blows using his fist that caused AAA's unconsciousness definitely
enabled accused-appellant to carry out his evil deed without any
defense on the part of AAA.

It is of no moment that there was no witness who actually saw

accused-appellant in the act of having carnal knowledge with AAA,
nor that AAA was then in a state of unconsciousness. For one thing,
jurisprudence abound that the crime of rape, more often than not, happens
only between the assailant and the victim. Hence, a conviction may be
based on circumstantial evidence which is indirect or presumptive
evidence that refers to a set of facts from which the existence of the
allegation sought to be proved may be inferred. The only ,
requirements are: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and, (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstances also need
to be consistent with each other and with the theory that the
accused is guilty.

In this case, it is undenied (sic) that accused-appellant committed

violence against AAA by striking and boxing her several times even
as the latter was already prostrate on the ground. It was also
established that accused-appellant mounted AAA and that the latter
was without her shorts and underwear. Accused-appellant tried to
escape while carrying the half-naked AAA but eventually dropped
her on the ground in his escape. It was CCC who put back her
underwear and shorts. There was blood on her underwear. AAA
complained to PO1 Patil-ao of pain in her vagina. Upon examination,
Dr. Ronaldo Licyayo confirmed that AAA suffered a laceration at 6
o'clock position which is indicative of vaginal penetration. It is also
worth stressing that after the incident, accused-appellant fled and
became a fugitive until his arrest fifteen (15) days later. All these
point to a conclusion of guilt on the part of accused-appellant.

Accused-appellant's denial that he merely boxed, but did not rape

AAA [does] not deserve belief. Denial, much like alibi, is one of the
weakest defenses as it is easy to fabricate. Pitted against the
certificate issued by Dr. Licyayo, affirmative testimony given by AAA,
CCC, and PO1 Patil-ao, the defense of denial put up by accused-
appellant cannot stand.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated 05 March 2010 of

the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur
22
is AFFIRMED.  (Citations omitted, emphases supplied.)cralawred
Accused-appellant adopted his arguments in his brief before the Court of
Appeals as his arguments in the present petition. He mainly questions the
conclusion reached by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, finding
him guilty based on circumstantial evidence. He avers that the pieces of
evidence presented by the prosecution are not enough to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.23ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The appeal is without merit.

To emphasize, "[c]ircumstantial evidence, if sufficient and competent,

may warrant the conviction of the accused of rape."24 In People v.
Lupac,25 the Court considered circumstantial evidence as the victim was
unconscious at the time of the alleged rape. The Court
said:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Lastly, Lupac assails the absence of credible direct evidence about his having
carnal knowledge of AAA because she herself, being then asleep and
unconscious, could not reliably attest to his supposed deed. Consequently,
he argues that the evidence against him did not amount to proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

Lupac's argument hews closely to what the Court has stated in People v.
Campuhan to the effect that there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt
of at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of
the pudendum of the female genital organ, which required some degree of
penetration beyond the vulva in order to touch the labia majora or the labia
minora.

The position of Lupac is bereft of merit, however, because his conviction

should still stand even if direct evidence to prove penile penetration of AAA
was not adduced. Direct evidence was not the only means of proving
rape beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence would also
be the reliable means to do so, provided that (a) there was more
than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences were
derived were proved; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances was such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. What was essential was that the unbroken chain
of the established circumstances led to no other logical conclusion
except the appellant's guilt.

The following circumstances combined to establish that Lupac consummated

the rape of AAA, namely: (a) when AAA went to take her afternoon nap, the
only person inside the house with her was Lupac; (b) about an hour into her
sleep, she woke up to find herself already stripped naked as to expose her
private parts; (c) she immediately felt her body aching and her vaginal
region hurting upon her regaining consciousness; (d) all doors and windows
were locked from within the house, with only her and the brief-clad Lupac
inside the house; (e) he exhibited a remorseful demeanor in unilaterally
seeking her forgiveness (Pasensiya ka na AAA), even spontaneously
explaining that he did not really intend to do "that" to her, showing his
realization of the gravity of the crime he had just committed against
her; (f) her spontaneous, unhesitating and immediate denunciation of the
rape to Tita Terry and her mother (hindot being the term she used);
and (g) the medico-legal findings about her congested vestibule within
the labia minora, deep fresh bleeding laceration at 9 o'clock position in the
hymen, and abraded and U-shaped posterior fourchette proved the recency
of infliction of her vaginal injuries.

The fact that all her injuries x x x were confined to the posterior region area
of her genitals signified the forceful penetration of her with a blunt
instrument, like an erect penis. (Citations omitted, Emphasis
supplied.)cralawred
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, Republic Act No. 8353, defines when and how
rape is committed:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. — Rape is Committed —

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise

unconscious[.]cralawred
The elements of the crime charged in this case are: (1) that the offender
had carnal knowledge of a female, and (2) that the same was committed by
using force, threat or intimidation. 26ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

As can be readily seen above, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals
declared AAA's testimony and those of CCC and PO1 Patil-ao to be credible
and convincing. We thus find it unnecessary to disturb the findings and
conclusions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals. This Court has repeatedly
maintained the sanctity of the factual findings of the trial courts, especially
when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. As we held in People v.
Quintos27:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The observance of the witnesses' demeanor during an oral direct
examination, cross-examination, and during the entire period that he or she
is present during trial is indispensable especially in rape cases because it
helps establish the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Trial provides judges with the
opportunity to detect, consciously or unconsciously, observable cues and
microexpressions that could, more than the words said and taken as a
whole, suggest sincerity or betray lies and ill will. These important aspects
can never be reflected or reproduced in documents and objects used as
evidence.

Hence, "[t]he evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to

the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and
their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great respect to the
trial court's findings," more so when the Court of Appeals affirmed such
findings. (Citations omitted.)cralawred
In People v. Belgar,28 the Court also affirmed the RTC and the Court of
Appeals in finding the accused guilty of rape based on circumstantial
evidence, as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Like the RTC and the CA, we find AAA's narration of her ordeal as
credible and truthful. The assessment by the RTC on the credibility of
AAA should be respected because the trial court had personally
observed her demeanor while testifying. This appreciation held true
because the CA affirmed the factual findings of the RTC.

We likewise note that AAA did not hesitate or waver in her narration even
during her rigorous cross examination. As such, her sole but credible
testimony as the rape victim sufficed to convict the accused of his crime. It
is remarkable, indeed, that there was neither allegation nor proof of any ill
motive on her part or on the part of her family in accusing him of raping her.

Belgar's alibi was rightly rejected. Alibi, to prosper, must be

substantiated with clear and convincing evidence. He must
demonstrate not only that he was somewhere else when the crime
occurred, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at
the crime scene when the crime was committed. But he failed to
adequately support his alibi. Although he attested that on January 20,
2000, he slept in his house situated in Barangay San Miguel, Tigaon,
Camarines Sur continuously from 8:00 p.m. until getting up at 5:00 a.m. of
the next day, he did not dispute that his house was but two kilometers away
from where the rape was committed. Both barangays were actually within
the Municipality of Tigaon, rendering it not physically impossible for him to
leave his house during the period that he allegedly was home in order to
reach AAA's house by midnight to commit the crime.

The commission of the rape was competently established although

AAA had been unconscious during the commission of the act. Proof
of the commission of the crime need not always be by direct
evidence, for circumstantial evidence could also sufficiently and
competently establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed,
the Court affirmed convictions for rape based on circumstantial
evidence. In this connection, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if the conditions set forth in Section 4, Rule 133 of
the Rules of Court are shown to exist, to wit:

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial

evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a

conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

In People v. Perez, we affirmed the conviction of the accused for

rape based on circumstantial evidence, there being no direct proof0
of the sexual intercourse. The accused was charged with having carnal
knowledge of the 16-year old victim through force, intimidation and against
her will. The Prosecution established that he had entered the victim's room
and had covered her nose and mouth with a chemically-laced cloth, causing
her to lose consciousness. Upon waking up, she felt pain In her vagina, and
she then saw blood and a white substance in her vagina. Her clothes were in
disarray and her underwear was in the corner of the room. He was no longer
around. Nonetheless, the Court held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Conviction for rape may be based on circumstantial evidence when
the victim cannot testify on the actual commission of the rape as she
was rendered unconscious when the act was committed, provided
that more than one circumstance is duly proved and that the totality
or the unbroken chain of the circumstances proven lead to no other
logical conclusion than the appellant's guilt of the crime
charged. Cristina's positive identification of the appellant as the person who
came to the room where she slept one early morning towards the end of
May 1994, and that he covered her nose and mouth with a foul smelling
handkerchief until she lost consciousness, the blood and white substance she
found on her vagina which ached the following morning, her torn shorts and
her panty removed, all lead to one inescapable conclusion that the appellant
raped her while she was unconscious. (Citations omitted, emphases
ours.)cralawred
Thus, we deny the petition and affirm the judgment of conviction. However,
we hereby modify the penalties awarded in keeping with recent
jurisprudence. We hold that accused is also liable for exemplary
damages even if no aggravating circumstances attended the commission of
the crime, because of the inherent bestiality of the act of rape. The Court
discussed this recently in People v. Jugueta29:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Finally, the Civil Code of the Philippines provides, in respect to exemplary
damages, thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil

liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from
fines and shall be paid to the offended party.cralawred
Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective
damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and
as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an
injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms
are generally, but not always, used interchangeably. In common law, there
is preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account
for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered
by a person as a result of an injury that has been maliciously and wantonly
inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt
caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant — associated
with such circumstances as willfulness, " wantonness, malice, gross
negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or

fraud or gross fraud — that intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or
vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that
may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct.
In either case, these damages are intended in good measure to deter the
wrongdoer and others like him from similar conduct in the future.

x x x x

Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded,

not only due to the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where
the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous
conduct of the offender. In much the same way as Article 2230 prescribes an
instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main
provision, lays down the very basis of the award. x x x. (Citations
omitted.)cralawred
Likewise, for simple rape with the penalty of reclusion perpetua People v.
Jugueta has increased the amount of moral damages to Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), thus we modify the award accordingly.
Furthermore, the Court imposes legal interest of 6% per annum on each of
the civil liabilities, reckoned from the finality of this judgment until full
payment.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.

04594, which affirmed the March 5, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, in Criminal Case No. 870-T,
is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant DARYL
POLONIO y TUANGCAY is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape and is hereby sentenced to the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and ordered to pay AAA the following: civil indemnity of Seventy-
Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), moral damages of Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), and exemplary damages of Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00). All monetary awards for damages shall earn
interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this
Decision until fully paid.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., on leave.
Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

**
 Per Special Order No. 2354 dated June 2, 2016.

1
Rollo, pp. 2-9; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with
Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Normandie B. Pizarro
concurring.

2
 CA rollo, pp. 29-50; penned by Presiding Judge Sixto D. Diompoc.

3
 The real names of the private complainant and those of her immediate
family members are withheld in consonance with People v. Cabalquinto, 533
Phil. 703 (2006), 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), and
A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and Their
Children).

4
 CA rollo,p. 13.

5
 Records, p. 26.

6
 Id. at 167-170.

7
 Id. at 176.

8
 CA rollo, p. 30.

9
 Id. at 31.

10
 Id.

11
 Id. at 32.

12
 Id. at 33.

13
 Id. at 34.

14
 Id. at 35-36.

15
 Id. at 36.

16
 Id.

17
 SECTION 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a

conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

18
 CA rollo, pp. 37-48.

19
 Id. at 49.

20
 Id. at 50.

21
 Id. at 60.

22
Rollo, pp. 6-8.

23
 CA rollo, pp. 57-71.

24
People v. Belgar, G.R. No. 182794, September 8, 2014, 734 SCRA 347,
348.chanrobleslaw

25
 695 Phil. 505, 514-516 (2012).

26
People v. Belgar, supra note 24 at 353.

27
 G.R. No. 199402, November 12, 2014, 740 SCRA 179, 190-191.

28
 Supra note 24 at 357-360.

29
 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.