477 Phil. 61
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
“That on or about the 20th day of April, 1997, in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of threats, force and intimidation and with lewd design or intent to cause or gratify his sexual desire or abuse, humiliate or degrade complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with JANICE MALACAMAN Y BRANDIS, mentally incapacitated, 13 years old, without her consent and against her will.Upon arraignment on June 6, 1997, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial ensued thereafter.
Contrary to law.”
“GENITAL:
There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex, coaptated and congested with the congested labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same disclosed an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep healing laceration at 3 o’clock and shallow healing laceration at 6 o’clock position. External vaginal orifice offers strong resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger and the virgin-sized vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix is normal in size, color and consistency.
CONCLUSION:
Findings are compatible with recent loss of virginity. There are no external signs of application of any form of violence.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding herein accused Avelino Mabonga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify herein private complainant Janice Malacaman in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.Appellant, in his brief, raised this lone assignment of error:
SO ORDERED.”
“THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”The basic issue for our resolution is whether the prosecution has established appellant’s guilt by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
“Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances.The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
- By using force or intimidation;
- When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
- When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
But despite Janice’s mental condition, she was able to testify clearly that appellant had carnal knowledge of her by using force and intimidation. He pulled her and inserted his penis into her vagina, thus:
“FISCAL FLORANTE RAMOLETE: x x xQ Doctor, do you know a person by the name of Janice Malacaman? A Yes, sir. Q Why do you know her? A She was my former patient at Amang Rodriguez Medical Center, sir. Q Since when have you been the doctor of Janice Malacaman? A I have seen her first in the year 1993 at the outpatient department, sir. Q And up to the present she is your patient, doctor? A Not anymore, sir, because I am already in private practice. Q Up to what year has she been your patient? A Up to the year of 1996, sir. Q And as your patient from 1993 up to 1996, what is her illness? A She was diagnosed to have epilepsy, sir. x x xQ Kindly enlighten us doctor about this epilepsy. Please give us a short background or description about this disease, epilepsy?A Epilepsy is a neurological disorder wherein there is a sort of a short circuit in the brain. So when the patient goes into attack, the patient goes into convulsion and this seizure is usually precipitated by an illness or stress or anything that could precipitate an attack, sir.Q So, it affects the brain? A Yes, sir. Q But although it affects the brain, in your opinion doctor, can a victim suffering from epilepsy still understand a little bit of what she is doing?A When we say epilepsy, this condition is usually related to a delay in the neuro-developmental status of the patient. Since this patient has epilepsy, her mentality does not correlate with her actual age. If this patient is 13 years old, her mental age could be that of a 6 or 7 year old, sir.x x x.”[35]
During cross-examination, Janice never wavered in her assertion that appellant ravished her and this incident was even witnessed by appellant’s wife, thus:
“FISCAL FLORANTE RAMOLETE: x x x
Q Miss witness, are you the same Janice Malacaman, the complainant against Avelino Mabonga? A Yes, sir. Q What did Avelino Mabonga do to you? A He pulled me, sir. Q What else did Avelino Mabonga do to you aside from pulling you? A He brought me to a destroyed comfort room (dinala ako sa sirang kubeta), sir. Q What did Avelino Mabonga do to you in that ‘sirang kubeta’? A He asked me to remove my panty and shorts and also his pants and shorts, sir. Then he asked me to lie down as he laid on top of me.Q What else did he do to you? A He inserted his penis into my vagina (pinasok po niya and titi niya sa buray ko) sir. Q Is accused present here, Miss witness? A Yes, sir. x x xQ Do you know when Avelino Mabonga inserted his penis into your vagina, madam witness? A Last night, sir. Q Did you give your statement to the police in connection to what Avelino Mabonga did to you? A Yes, sir. x x x.”[36]
In his brief, appellant assails Janice’s credibility, stressing that her narration of the sordid details of the incident was not only rehearsed but coached by her mother and witness Rolando Ayad.
“x x xFISCAL FLORANTE RAMOLETE: Q What did Ave do to you? A Hinila ako sa sirang kubeta, sir. Q What did he do next after pulling you to a comfort room? A He asked me to remove my shorts, sir. Siya naman ay nagbaba ng pantalon at shorts niya, sir. Q After that, what happened? A Dumapa po naman siya sa akin, sir. Q After that, what happened? A Ipinasok niya ang titi niya sa buray ko, sir. Q After that, what happened? A Nakita ng asawa niya, sir. Q You testified earlier that his wife saw the incident, was Avelino still on top of you, at that time? A Yes, sir. x x x.”[37]
“It would be preposterous to assume that the victim, whose intelligence quotient is admittedly low, could have concocted the grave charge of rape, or that she and her mother would go into the trouble of having her medically examined, going to court and advertising to the whole world she had been raped, if the charge was merely invented.”We reject appellant’s contention that Janice was coached by her mother and witness Rolando Ayad. It bears stressing that “no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth.”[39] In fact, no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial, along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation, were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished.[40] Also, it is highly unnatural for a mother, virtuous or not, to use her own daughter as “an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her to embarrassment and even stigma.”[41]
“Complainant, under the circumstances, could have been easily cowed into submitting to offender’s evil design. She is thirteen (13) years old and an epileptic suffering from a delayed neuro-developmental status that makes her mentality incapable of correlating with her actual age. This was attested by her physician, Dr. Ricardo Atengco of the Amang Rodriguez Medical Center, who treated complainant from 1993 to 1996.”[42]While Janice failed to resist appellant’s lustful advances, it does not indicate that she consented thereto. On this point, the late Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino explained the insignificance of consent when rape is committed on a woman suffering some mental deficiency impairing her reason or free will (like the victim here), thus:
“x x x in the rape of the woman deprived of reason or unconscious, the victim has no will. The absence of will determines the existence of rape. Such lack of will may exist not only when the victim is unconscious or totally deprived of reason, but also when she is suffering some mental deficiency impairing her reason or free will. In that case, it is not necessary that she should offer real opposition or constant resistance to the sexual intercourse. Carnal knowledge of a woman so weak in intellect as to be incapable of legal consent constitutes rape. Where the offended woman was feeble-minded, sickly and almost an idiot, sexual intercourse with her is rape. Her failure to offer resistance to the act did not mean consent for she was incapable of giving any rational consent.”[43]Janice’s testimony is corroborated by her neighbors, Rolando and Rafael. Both categorically testified that they saw appellant having sexual intercourse with her on the day in question, thus:
But appellant discredits the above testimonies, imputing ulterior motive on their part.
“FISCAL FLORANTE RAMOLETE:
x x xQ How far is this demolished house from that place where you saw Avelino Mabonga dragging Bobot? A Very near, sir. Q From where you are seated now, will you kindly show the distance between the demolished house and that place where Avelino Mabonga dragged Bobot?A The distance is about 60 ft., sir. x x xQ What else did you do next, Mr. Witness? A Meron po akong nasa isip. Na baka ganoon nga ang mangyari dahil naalimpungatan po ako noon, sir. Q What did you foresee will happen when you saw Avelino dragging Bobot? A He might do something wrong to her, sir. So I followed them to that place. There, I saw Avelino naked, sir. Q Do you mean to say that he was completely naked, Mr. witness? A Yes, sir. Q What else did you see? A I saw him on top, sir. Q On top of whom, Mr. witness? A On top of the child, sir. x x x.”[44]“Q Where is this toilet that your niece was referring to when she shouted, ‘Avelino Mabonga is pulling or dragging Bobot to a toilet’?
A At the back of our house, sir. Q And were you able to go to that toilet, Mr. witness? A Yes, sir. Q What did you see? A I saw Avelino Mabonga, sir. Q Was he alone then, Mr. witness? A No, sir. Q What was Avelino Mabonga doing there? A He was on top of the child, sir. Q You are referring to Bobot, Mr. witness? A Yes, sir. Q You said that he was on top of Bobot, did you notice his body, Mr. witness? A He was not wearing anything, sir. Not a single clothing. Q So, do you want to impress upon this Court that he was completely naked, Mr. witness? A Yes, sir. x x xQ Why didn’t you stop Avelino Mabonga when you saw him on top of Bobot, Mr. witness? A I was worried that Avelino Mabonga might be carrying something that would cause harm to the girl and myself, sir.Q After calling your niece, Mr. witness, what else did you do? A I asked her to call the police, sir. x x xQ Mr. witness, what transpired next? A I saw the wife of Ave proceeding to the place where Ave was. She was shouting, sir. x x x
Q Mr. witness, you said that she was shouting, what did you hear, if any? A She was cursing (minumura) Ave, sir. Q What else did you hear when Rita was shouting, Mr. witness? A She shouted, ‘what are you doing there?’ (Anong ginagawa mo diyan?) x x x.”[45]
“That carnal knowledge of complainant was accomplished by means of force and intimidation, has likewise been established. Eyewitnesses’ account and even the testimony of complainant herself revealed how she was forcibly dragged by the offender to an abandoned structure (toilet). x x x.
And the identity of the culprit cannot be questioned. Accused herein was positively identified by complainant. Even the eyewitnesses, whose testimonies have not been impeached, pinpoint the accused as the person who committed the detestable act. Jurisprudence have consistently maintained that positive identification prevails over an accused’s bare denial. The defense’s attempt to attribute evil motive to the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against herein accused, miserably failed.
“Appellant’s denial is an inherently weak defense. It has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. Inherently weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the accused, as in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution’s evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters.”And so, the trial court correctly found appellant guilty of the crime of simple rape through force and intimidation. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, the trial court, thus, properly imposed upon appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, earlier quoted.