SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 212201, June 28, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO DENIEGA Y ESPINOSA, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA,**J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal filed by accused-appellant Rodolfo Deniega y Espinosa assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated September 27, 2013, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05348, which affirmed in toto the November 15, 2011 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in Criminal Case No. 6185-SPL, finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime of statutory rape and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordering him to pay the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The antecedents are as follows:
AAA3 was a young lass suffering from mental retardation. Around 7 o'clock in the evening of May 2, 2007, AAA who, was then sixteen years old4 but with a mental capacity of a six (6)-year-old child, went out of their house with some neighbors to watch a basketball game in a nearby basketball court. Upon returning home at approximately 11 o'clock in the evening of the same date, BBB, AAA's mother noticed that the latter's pants were wet. When BBB asked AAA what caused the wetting of her pants, the latter simply dismissed her mother's query and said that it was nothing (wala lang). Prompted by suspicion, BBB asked AAA to remove her pants, thereupon, she smelled her underwear which emitted the scent of semen. When quizzed by her mother, AAA eventually admitted that herein accused-appellant, whom she calls Dodong, and who was known to them as a delivery boy in their neighborhood, invited her to go to another basketball court where they could talk with each other but, instead, upon arriving at the said place, he undressed her and made her lie down. Upon acquiring such information, BBB put AAA's underwear in a plastic bag and immediately reported the incident to the barangay authorities. AAA later revealed that, at the said basketball court, accused-appellant undressed her, made her lie down, removed his pants and underwear, went on top of her, inserted his penis in her vagina and made "up-and-down" movements." The barangay authorities, with the help of some police officers, then proceeded to arrest accused-appellant who was then found in a neighbor's house. At the time of his apprehension, accused-appellant was very drunk. Thus, the authorities waited until the next morning for him to become sober before interrogating him. Upon questioning by the authorities, accused-appellant admitted in front of his employer and BBB that he had sex with AAA and that he loves AAA and he offered to marry her. He also requested BBB and the barangay authorities not to file a case against him. BBB, however, refused accused-appellant's offer and request. Instead, she brought AAA to a doctor in Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba, Laguna for medical examination. Subsequently, a criminal complaint for rape was filed against accused-appellant.5
In an Amended Information dated July 9, 2007, accused was charged with the crime of statutory rape before the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna, as follows:
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna accuses Rodolfo Deniega @ "DONG" of the crime of Statutory Rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:Accused-appellant was arraigned on August 14, 2007 where he pleaded not guilty.7
That on or about May 2, 2007, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge with a minor (16 years old) [AAA], whose mental age is only six (6) years old. Said carnal knowledge with the said [AAA] is detrimental to her normal growth and development.
That accused knew fully well that the said [AAA] is suffering from mental disability and/or disorder.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Rodolfo Deniega y Espinosa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish through clinical and testimonial evidence that AAA is suffering from moderate mental retardation, with an IQ of 43 and with a mental age of a six-year-old child. The trial court also noted that, as admitted by accused-appellant, he knew of the condition of the victim. The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim. The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of AAA holding that she testified on the rape that happened to her in a straightforward and categorical manner. The trial court did not give weight to accused-appellant's defense of alibi because the place where he claims to be at the time of the rape is just three streets away from the scene of the crime, hence, it is not physically impossible for him to be at the said scene at the time of the commission of the rape. The RTC also noted that accused-appellant failed to account for his whereabouts between 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the evening of May 2, 2007, which is the approximate time that AAA was raped. The RTC further held that AAA positively identified accused-appellant as the one who raped her.
The accused is ordered to pay the victim the following sums: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damage.
SO ORDERED.9
Art. 266-A Rape; When And How Rape is CommittedStatutory rape is committed when: (1) the offended party is under twelve years of age; and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation, whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness, or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority.18 It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse.19
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;x x x
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or 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.
x x x xIn the present case, the Information alleged that the victim, at the time of the commission of the crime, was 16 years old but with a mental age of a 6-year-old child. The prosecution was able to establish these facts through AAA's Birth Certificate,27 Clinical Abstract prepared by a medical doctor who is a psychiatrist from the National Center for Mental Health,28 as well as the testimonies of the said doctor29 and the victim's mother, BBB.30
The term, "deprived of reason," is associated with insanity or madness. A person deprived of reason has mental abnormalities that affect his or her reasoning and perception of reality and, therefore, his or her capacity to resist, make decisions, and give consent.
The term, "demented," refers to a person who suffers from a mental condition called dementia. Dementia refers to the deterioration or loss of mental functions such as memory, learning, speaking, and social condition, which impairs one's independence in everyday activities.
We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual disability," had been classified under "deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of reason" and "demented", however, should be differentiated from the term, "mentally retarded" or "intellectually disabled." An intellectually disabled person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even ruled that they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her maturity is not there despite the physical age. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the "socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social responsibility."
Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. Both are considered incapable of giving rational consent because both are not yet considered to have reached the level of maturity that gives them the capability to make rational decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making is a function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her mental age. Therefore, in determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A(1)(d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established.
x x x26
x x x xIn the present case, it is true that based on the medical and psychiatric evaluation of AAA, she has moderate mental retardation and that she has the mental age of a six-year-old child. Accused-appellant makes much of this fact to discredit the testimony of AAA. This Court has, nonetheless, held that competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently.33 Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused.34 The basic rule is that when a victim's testimony is credible and sufficiently establishes the elements of the crime, it may be enough basis to convict an accused of rape.35
When the issue of credibility of witnesses is presented before this Court, we follow certain guidelines that have over time been established in jurisprudence. In People v. Sanchez (G.R. No. 197815, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 639, 643), we enumerated them as follows:First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the "assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage point denied appellate courts-and when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court." While there are recognized exceptions to the rule, this Court has found no substantial reason to overturn the identical conclusions of the trial and appellate courts on the matter of AAA's credibility.
Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded.
And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC. (Citations omitted)
x x x32
1) | Accused-appellant is ORDERED to PAY the increased amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. |
2) | Accused-appellant is additionally ORDERED to PAY the victim, AAA, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Decison until fully paid. |
Endnotes:
** Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2445 dated June 16, 2017.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Pedro B. Corales, rollo, pp. 2-12.
2 Penned by Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano, CA rollo, pp. 44-51.
3 The initials AAA represent the private offended party, whose name is withheld to protect her privacy. Under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), the name, address, and other identifying information of the victim are made confidential to protect and respect the right to privacy of the victim.
4 See AAA's Certificate of Live Birth, Exhibit "D," records, p. 8.
5 See TSN, October 10, 2007, November 14, 2007, and April 30, 2008.
6 Records, p. 22.
7 See Certificate of Arraignment, id. at 33.
8 See Pre-Trial Order, id. at 45-46.
9 Records, p. 191.
10 See Notice of Appeal, id. at 194.
11 CA rollo, pp. 143-145.
12Id. at 147.
13Rollo, p. 18.
14Id. at 22-24.
15Id. at 25-29.
16 Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
17Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
18People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 208007, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 607 613.
19Id.
20People v. Teodoro, 622 Phil. 328, 337 (2009); People v. Vergara, 24 Phil. 702, 708 (2014); People v. Gutierrez, supra note 18.
21Id.
22Id.
23Id.
24People v. Bangsoy, G.R. No. 204047, January 13, 2016, 780 SCRA 564, 576; People v. Castro, 653 Phil. 471, 480 (2010).
25 G.R. No. 199402, November 12, 2014, 740 SCRA 179.
26People v. Quintos, supra, at 201-202. (Emphasis ours)
27Supra note 4.
28 Exhibit "F", records, pp. 18-21.
29 See TSN, January 30, 2008, pp. 6-8.
30 See TSN, October, 10, 2007, p. 6.
31 724 Phil. 759 (2014).
32People v. Pareja, supra, at 773.
33People v. Caoile, 710 Phil. 564, 576 (2013).
34Id.
35People v. Quintos, supra note 25, at 192.
36 See Exhibit "E," records, p. 7; TSN, March 18, 2009, p. 5.
37 See TSN, April 30, 2008, pp. 4-5.
38People v. Cabral, 623 Phil. 809, 815 (2009).
39People v. Bitancor, 441 Phil. 758, 774 (2002).
40Id.
41Id.
42An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penally.
43 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
44People v. Jaime Brioso alias "Talap-talap," G.R. No. 209344, June 27, 2016.