FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 242684, February 17, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XXX,1 ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal filed under Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court from the Decision2 dated May 29, 2018 (Decision) of the Court of Appeals, Tenth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08957, which affirmed the Decision3 dated September 5, 2016 of Branch 16, Regional Trial Court of MMM,4 Bulacan (RTC), in Criminal Cases Nos. 1063-M-2005 and 1064-M-2005.
Criminal Case No. 1063-M-2005Upon arraignment on June 14, 2005, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.8
That [o]n or about February, 2004, in the municipality of [NNN],5 province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs[,] did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation have carnal knowledge of [AAA],6 a 23[-]year[-]old mentally retarded woman, against her will and consent, and with full knowledge of her mental disability at the time of the commission of the crime.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 1063-M-2005
That [o]n or about July, 2004, in the municipality of [NNN], province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs[,] did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation have carnal knowledge of [AAA], a 23[-]year[-]old mentally retarded woman, against her will and consent, and with full knowledge of her mental disability at the time of the commission of the crime.
Contrary to law.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises carefully considered, this Court finds accused [XXX] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of two counts of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each case, without eligibility for parole.The RTC held that while paternity is not an element of the crime of Rape, the fact that the child born by AAA is an offspring of the accused-appellant, bolstered by the fact of sexual congress between the accused-appellant and AAA, who is a mental retardate, sufficiently proves all the elements of the crime of Rape.26]
Likewise, for each case, the accused is likewise (sic) ordered to pay private complainant [AAA] the following:
1. Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
2. Php75,000.00 as moral damages; and
3. Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All damages awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
x x x
SO ORDERED.25chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the September 5, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of [MMM], Bulacan, Branch 16, convicting accused-appellant [XXX] in Criminal Cases Nos. 1063-M-2005 and 1064-M-2005 of Qualified Rape, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant is hereby ORDERED to PAY the increased amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php100,000.00 as moral damages, and Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape with six percent (6%) interest from finality of judgment until fully paid.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe CA ruled that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant was guilty of raping AAA.29 It further held that rape of a mental retardate falls under paragraph 1(b), not paragraph 1(d), of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as the same precisely refers to rape of a female "deprived of reason."30 Furthermore, proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act.31 Lastly, it held that the rape is qualified because the accused-appellant knew of the mental disability of AAA at the time he raped her.32
SO ORDERED.28chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The accused-appellant should be convicted of Qualified Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) |
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is [c]ommitted:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 are the following: (1) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason or unconscious, or when the victim is under 12 years old.34Article 266-B. Penalty. - x x x
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 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. 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. x x x x
x x x
The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating or qualifying circumstances:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryx x x
10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied)
x x x [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(l)(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.In the more recent case of People v. Castillo,38 the Court ruled:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In all the above circumstances, rape is ensured because the victim lacks the awareness or presence of mind to resist a sexual abuse. The unconscious, the manipulated, the reason-deprived, the demented, and the young cannot be expected to offer resistance to sexual abuse for the simple reason that their mental statuses render them incapable of doing so. They are incapable of rational consent. Thus, sexual intercourse with them is rape. No evidence of force, intimidation, or resistance is necessary.37 (Emphasis supplied)
Following these developments, it is clear that as regards rape of a mental retardate, the Court now holds that, following People v. Quintos, when the victim is a mental retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12 years old, the rape should be classified as statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the RPC, as amended.As shown in the Psychological Report submitted by Ms. De Guzman, AAA was found to be suffering from mild mental retardation with an IQ of 54. Her mental age is equivalent to that of an eight-year-old child.40 Further, according to Ms. De Guzman, AAA also suffers from a type of physiological disorder diagnosed as Epilepsy, which hampers her intellectual, emotional, and social adjustments.41
x x x
In the present case, the prosecution satisfactorily established the mental age of the victim. Dr. Manalo conducted a battery of tests to determine the mental age, social maturity and emotional condition of AAA. Dr. Manalo testified that based on her examination, AAA has a mental age of a 5-year-old.39 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The credibility and competence of AAA cannot be disregarded by the defense merely by reason of her mental retardation |
[T]he 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.45chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryBoth the RTC and CA found AAA a competent and credible witness despite her mental retardation. Thus, there is no reason to overturn said finding by the lower courts.
[Emphasis must be given to the fact] that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. 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 hm1ds of the accused. Moreover, it has been jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.47chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryVerily, the accused-appellant cannot discredit AAA and exculpate himself from the atrocious crimes that he committed by attacking the credibility of AAA merely by reason of her mental disability.
The DNA examination conducted revealed that the offspring of AAA is indeed the child of the accused-appellant |
DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. A person's DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a person's lifetime; the DNA in a person's blood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins.Further, in Herrera v. Alba,55 the nature of a DNA analysis m determining paternity is explained:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to exonerate a wrongly accused suspect, where biological evidence has been left. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can assist immensely in effecting a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case.
DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used. Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair, skin tissue, semen, blood, or saliva which can be left on the victim's body or at the crime scene. Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding, or furniture could also be transferred to the victim's body during the assault. Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact between an assailant and a victim. If properly collected from the victim, crime scene or assailant, DNA can be compared with known samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime.54chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations between people. In each of these regions, a person possesses two genetic types called "allele", one inherited from each parent. In [a] paternity test, the forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable regions in an individual to produce a DNA profile. Comparing next the DNA profiles of the mother and child, it is possible to determine which half of the child's DNA was inherited from the mother. The other half must have been inherited from the biological father. The alleged father's profile is then examined to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his profile, which match the paternal types in the child. If the man's DNA types do not match that of the child, the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match, then he is not excluded as the father.56chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn this relation, Section 9 of the Rules on DNA Evidence57 reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Section 9. Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. - In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the following:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryUnder the Rules on DNA Evidence, if the value of the probability of paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity. Disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence.58
(a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence; (b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case; and that (c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
How the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.66chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn the instant case, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy and dependability of the DNA examination conducted. As held by the RTC, the collection of the biological samples was done in the chambers of the RTC judge, in the presence of the public prosecutor, defense counsel, and the RTC judge herself.67 Both parties witnessed how the samples were collected and how they were handled.68 PCI Dela Torre personally processed and examined the biological samples using scientifically valid standards in conducting the DNA examinations.69 His qualification as an expert witness, and the procedures he undertook in processing the said biological samples, were not questioned by the defense before the RTC.70
Appropriate penalty and damages |
Endnotes:
1 The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006), and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
2Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Maria Filomena D. Singh concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 43-61. Penned by Presiding Judge Sita Jose Clemente.
4 Supra note 1.
5 Supra note 1.
6 Id.
7Rollo, p. 3.
8 Id. at 4.
9 Id. at 3-4.
10 Supra note 1.
11Rollo, p. 4.
12 Id.
13 Supra note 1.
14Rollo, pp. 4-5.
15 Supra note 1.
16Rollo, pp. 4-5.
17 Id. at 5.
18 Id. at 6.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 6-7.
22 CA rollo, p. 58. Italics in the original.
23Rollo, p. 7.
24 Supra note 3.
25 CA rollo, pp. 60-61.
26 Id. at 59.
27 Supra note 2.
28Rollo, p. 14.
29 Id. at 13.
30 Id. at 10.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 13.
33 AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, September 20, 1997.
34People v. Joson, 751 Phil. 450, 456 (2015).
35People v. Deniega, 811 Phil. 712, 721 (2017); People v. Niebres, 822 Phil. 68, 75-76 (2017); People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 830-831 (2014).
36 746 Phil. 809 (2014).
37 Id. at 830-831.
38 G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020, accessed at .
39 Id.
40Rollo, p. 11.
41 CA rollo, p. 50.
42Rollo, pp. 13-14.
43People v. Pascua, G.R. No. 151858, November 27, 2003, 416 SCRA 548, 555.
44Rollo, p. 13.
45People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759 (2014).
46 G.R. No. 186533, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 452, 471.
47 Id.
48People v. Palotes, 763 Phil. 118 (2015).
49Rollo, p. 5.
50 Id. at 6.
51 CA rollo, p. 58.
52People v. Clemeno, G.R. No. 215202, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 130, 140.
53 G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 504.
54 Id. at 514-515.
55 G.R. No. 148220, June 25, 2005, 460 SCRA 197, as cited in People v. Corpuz, 812 Phil. 62, 92-91 (2017).
56 Id. at 210-211.
57 A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC dated October 2, 2007.
58 RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, Sec. 3.
59 CA rollo, p. 58. Emphasis supplied.
60 Id. at 56.
61 Id. Emphasis supplied.
62Rollo, p. 13.
63 Id. at 6.
64 Id. at 13.
65 Id.
66People v. Yatar, supra note 53, at 515.
67 CA rollo, p. 59.
68 Id.
69 Id.
70 Id.
71 "When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime."
72 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES, June 24, 2006.
73 783 Phil. 806 (2016).cralawredlibrary