FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 225604, July 23, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIONESIO ROY Y PERALTA, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
On appeal is the February 27,2015 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06582 that affirmed with modification the December 16, 2013 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila (RTC), finding Dionesio Roy y Peralta (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Factual Antecedents
Appellant was charged with statutory rape before the RTC in an Information which reads:
That on or about June 30, 2010, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge upon one [AAA],3 a minor, 9 years of age, by then and there pulling her inside a building at Intramuros, this City, covering her mouth so she could not shout for help, removing her shorts and panty, make her sit on his lap, kissing her on the lips and forcibly inserting his penis into her vagina against her will and consent.Appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Contrary to law.4
AAA testified that 'around 4 p.m.' of30 June 2010, she was strolling in Intramuros when somebody dragged her into a break or opening in a wall. She recognized her assailant as the appellant, whom she calls Roy and who lived a block away from her family's house. After dragging her into the opening, appellant allegedly removed her clothes. AAA shouted but appellant covered her mouth and removed his own shorts and briefs. Then he allegedly pulled her hair and made her sit on his lap, facing him. With her legs spread apart, appellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina. Appellant also held her by the waist and kissed her lips. There was no full penetration; she testified that he only 'dipped' his penis into her organ. Appellant then sensed that someone saw them and he stood up and put on his clothes. A security guard then arrived and handcuffed the appellant.The defense, on the other hand, presented appellant who gave conflicting answers to the questions propounded. The defense thus prayed for the RTC to refer appellant for psychiatric examination to determine his mental status and level of comprehension which the RTC granted in an Order6 dated November 16, 2012.
[Bartulay] testified that 'around 9 in the morning' of 30 June 2010[,] he proceeded from Letran College to San Gabriel Street in Intramuros to urinate. He then saw the appellant, whom he identified in court, and who was at the time of the incident naked and only a meter and a half away from him, sitting undressed with a naked child on his lap. [Bartulay] saw that the appellant had covered the child's mouth while the child appeared to be in pain. [Bartulay] described that the appellant appeared to be pulling out something in front of the child while the latter's legs had stretched out. He reported the ghastly scene to a security guard. On the stand, he also identified his Sinumpaang Salaysay.
AAA's mother, BBB, presented a Certificate of Live Birth showing that her daughter was born on 13 May 2001. She testified that when the alleged rape happened, she was at the inauguration of President Aquino at the Luneta Park. Before attending, she left AAA sleeping at her mother's house in Intramuros. She knew the appellant since she was 18 years old, and testified that she would usually see him near her residence. When she heard that her daughter had been molested, she accompanied AAA to the Philippine General Hospital ('PGH') for examination. With her assistance, AAA executed a sworn statement detailing the crime.
Dr. Merle Tan, the examining physician, testified that she attended to AAA on 30 June 2010. She summarized her findings in a report, which concluded that 'congenital findings are diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma.'5
For the defense, the appellant initially raised the defense of alibi. He testified that while he recognized AAA, he did not rape her. At the time of the alleged rape, he was only defecating, but was inconsistent on whether this was at home or at the hole where he was arrested.Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
x x x x
Subsequently, Dr. Grace Domingo from the National Center for Mental Health testified on the appellant's mental status. She stated that appellant had undergone a battery of tests and examinations, and concluded that the results showed appellant to be suffering from imbecility, or moderate mental retardation. She clarified that while this was irreversible, appellant can be taught, and recommended continuous treatment On cross, she testified that the finding of imbecility only covered the mental status of the appellant at the time he underwent mental evaluation, and not necessarily at the time of the offense, meaning that, at the time of the rape, appellant probably knew what he was doing and the consequences thereof.
On redirect, Dr. Domingo testified that she could not conclude absolutely that appellant was aware of his actions since he was not x x x brought to the Center immediately after the rape. On re-cross, Dr. Domingo maintained her general response.7
WHEREFORE, the court hereby finds the accused DIONESIO ROY y PERALTA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the CA.
The said accused is ordered to pay the victim, AAA the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.9
Dr. Domingo's Report is likewise inconclusive as to the state of appellant's mental faculties at the time of the rape. While the report extensively discussed his condition in early 2013, it does not conclude that he was afflicted with imbecility, or that he was unaware of what he was doing, at the time he raped AAA. The report only concluded that 'at present, the patient is deemed INCOMPETENT to stand the rigors of court trial! Unfortunately, such incompetence merely means that appellant's mental state is not fit for trial. It does not mean that he was completely deprived of reason and freedom of will at the time he committed the crime.In view of the foregoing, we therefore affirm the conviction of appellant for the crime of statutory rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court, thus, correctly imposed upon appellant, as affirmed by the CA, the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Furthermore, We agree with the RTC that appellant's actions at the moment of the rape reveal that appellant was aware of what he was committing, and that what he was doing was wrong. Appellant, as convincingly testified to by AAA, and corroborated by [Bartulay], dragged AAA into a secluded spot, thereby isolating himself and AAA to facilitate the commission of his lust. When AAA tried to call for help, appellant covered her mouth, ensuring that they would not be disturbed. Such precautions make it difficult to believe that appellant was in such a state that he could not discern what was right from wrong, or that he was completely deprived of intelligence or will.21
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018.
** Per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
1 CA rollo, pp. 87-103; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Ramon A. Cruz.
2 Records, pp. 310-314; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Mona Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora.
3 "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination, And for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, And for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004." People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 (2011).
4 Records, p. 1.
5 CA rollo, pp. 88-89.
6 Records, p. 193.
7 CA rollo, pp. 89-90.
8 Records, pp. 310-314.
9 Id. at 314.
10 CA rollo, pp. 87-103.
11People v. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 214762, September 20, 2017.
12People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 584 (2014).
13 Records, p. 43.
14People v. Vergara, 724 Phil. 702, 709 (2014).
15 Records, p. 14.
16People v. Barcela, 734 Phil. 332, 342 (2014).
17People v. Legaspi, 409 Phil. 254, 268 (2001).
18 CIVIL CODE, Article 800.
19People v. Pambid, 384 Phil. 702, 728 (2000).
20People v. Isla, 699 Phil. 256, 267 (2012).
21 CA rollo, p. 100.
22People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).
23Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 282 (2013).