b. Moral damages
P30,000.00
P50,000.00
TOTAL
P60,000.00
P100,000.00
All of which must earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of this
judgment until fully paid.[15]
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a decision, dated 30 June 2014, the CA affirmed the conviction of accusedappellant but modified the amount of damages awarded. It opined that the court a
quo correctly accorded credence to the testimony of BBB after finding her answers
to the questions on direct and cross-examination to be intelligible, candid, and
unwavering. The CA found no merit in accused-appellant's attempt to discredit
BBB's testimony by imputing ill motive against her; that is, that she had charged
accused-appellant with rape at the instance of CCC who harbored resentment
against him for being the common-law husband of her mother.
The appellate court pointed out that during the hearing on 7 June 2011, BBB
affirmed that she was executing an affidavit of desistance, but she remained silent
when asked if accused-appellant did not actually rape her. It added that BBB's
testimony was corroborated by the Medico-Legal Report, dated 5 May 2009, finding
that BBB's hymen suffered from incomplete laceration which suggested blunt or
penetrating trauma. The CA disposed the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Joint
Decision, dated January 30, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, San Jose
City is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellant Rolando Bagsic is further
ordered to pay private complainant BBB the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 1516-2009-SJC for
statutory rape; and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in Criminal Case No. 15152009-SJC for rape by sexual assault, in addition to the other award of damages, all
of which are subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of
finality of this judgement until they are fully paid.[16]
Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant adopts the same assignment of error he
raised before the appellate court, viz:
LONE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR