GESMUNDO, C.J.:
That [sometime] in January 2013 at [XXX] and within the jurisdiction of his Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of AAA,[4] a fifteen[-]year old female minor deprived of reason, in violation of the aforementioned law.Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded to trial. To prove its case, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the following: (1) AAA, the minor private complainant herself; (2) BBB,[6] AAA's aunt (the sister of AAA's mother) and the person who took custody of AAA; (3) Dr. Roy Camarillo (Dr. Camarillo), the physician who approved the results of the physical examination conducted upon AAA; and (4) Dr. Joel Lazaro (Dr. Lazaro), a Development and Behavioral Pediatrician who diagnosed AAA with mental retardation.[7]
That in the commission of the offense offender knew of the mental retardation of complainant.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
AAA was born on March 11, 1997. Her biological mother is CCC and her birth certificate indicated that her father was unknown. When she was 6 years old, she was found to have a global pattern of developmental delay and had a developmental age of 3 to 3.5 years old. At 9 years old, she was diagnosed to have mental retardation with a developmental age of a 5-year old. On her follow-up visit at the age of 16 years old, she was diagnosed to have a developmental age of 5 to 5.5 years old. Initially, it was her grandparents who took care of her, but upon their death, BBB took over.On the other hand, the CA summarized the version of the defense in this manner:
As aforesaid, accused-appellant is the live-in partner of CCC.
According to AAA, sometime in January 2013, herein accused-appellant, whom the former referred to as "Kuya Boy" or "Charles" touched her vagina, inserted his penis into her vagina, and kissed her on the cheek and the lips. Thereafter, he hit her at her thighs.
Because of AAA's mental condition, which Dr. Lazaro explained in his testimony, the public prosecutor, in a sketch of a male person, made AAA identify the male body part which accused-appellant inserted in her vagina. AAA then pointed to the male genitalia and referred to it as "itlog." When confronted with a female sketch, she was able to properly identify the vagina, and narrated that it was there where accused-appellant placed his "itlog."
AAA further testified that she lived in the same house with accused-appellant for quite some time; and that the latter repeatedly touched her private part. As accused-appellant threatened her, she did not report the incident to anyone. She was only 15 years old at the time of the incident.
The second witness, BBB testified that she took care of AAA since birth. Sometime in February 2013, she obtained information from her half sister's helper that she saw herein accused-appellant enter the room where AAA was lying on the bed and covered with a blanket; and that accused-appellant immediately locked the door thereafter. This led her to inquire from AAA about the incident, and the latter told her that accused-appellant inserted his finger into her private part and caressed it.
BBB then reported the incident to a certain Colonel Lumbres. Then BBB, together with AAA and their house helper, went to the barangay hall where they assisted by Barangay Captain [YYY].[10] They were immediately referred to the officer of the Department of Social Welfare and Development Upon request by the Police Superintendent of the [XXX] Police Station, a medical examination was conducted upon AAA at the Camp [XXX].
Dr. Camarillo testified on the Medico-Legal Report and further alleged that there was no evident ana-genital injury, but clarified that the result does not exclude sexual abuse and that further investigation, such as careful questioning of the child is required.[11]
For his part, accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusations hurled against him by the prosecution and raised the defense of denial. While he admitted that he knows AAA as the daughter of his live-in partner, CCC, he denied that he touched or molested AAA; and that AAA was not living with them and he never visited the latter.
Accused-appellant narrated that, in January 2013, he was in the store that he manages with CCC, with their three store helpers. Nevertheless, he admitted that AAA would go to their house on Sundays before going to church.
To discredit AAA's testimony, accused-appellant contended that the stories were merely fabricated considering that CCC's family never approved of him and his relationship with CCC and that they even blamed him for the death of their parents.
CCC's testimony corroborated accused-appellant's version of facts. According to CCC, it was not possible for accused-appellant to have committed the crime because he was always with her in their grocery store as he was the one in-charge of the inventory and the remittance of money to the bank. She admitted that her sister adopted her daughter, AAA, because she was not able to provide for her. Although she loves her daughter, she did not regain custody over her despite the fact that she already has the means to support her. The accusations against accused-appellant are merely ill-motivated because her family disapproved of her relationship with him.[12]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused EDILBERTO MANUEL, JR. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE defined and penalized under Article 266-A No. 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A) No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 of the Revised Penal Code. He is ordered to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.The RTC gave credence to the testimony of AAA who positively identified accused-appellant as her abuser. It found the same to be straightforward, convincing, and consistent despite her mental deficiency. There was no tinge of revenge or rancor in her testimony. It held that the absence of any abrasions or injury on the genitalia of AAA is of no moment because such is not indispensable for a rape conviction. It refused to give weight to accused-appellant's defense of denial and imputation of ill motive.[14] Lastly, the trial court ruled that the fact of AAA's mental's deficiency was well-established by competent medical evidence. Unperturbed, accused-appellant appealed his conviction.
SO ORDERED.[13]
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED.The appellate court declared that it was not persuaded by accused-appellant's argument that the physical evidence does not support the charge of rape. It noted that there was no definitive statement in the medico-legal report that AAA could not have been subjected to sexual abuse. It held that the credible disclosure of AAA that accused-appellant raped her is the most important proof of the commission of the crime. It found that there is no evidence that AAA was moved by any improper motive. It likewise rejected accused-appellant's defense of denial.[16]
The January 31, 2017, Decision rendered by Branch 36 of the Regional Trial Court [XXX], Laguna, in Criminal Case No. 21532-2013-C is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Edilberto Manuel, Jr. is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole, and ordered to pay AAA: (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All amounts due shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of this Decision until full payment.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Accused-appellant's guilt for the generic crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. |
The elements of rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age.[20]
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 is otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; 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.[19] (emphasis supplied)
In the 2017 cases of People v. Deniega and People v. Niebres, however, the Court held that sexual intercourse with a mental retardate whose mental age is below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape. These cases cite People v. Quintos, which provided for the distinctions between "deprived of reason," "demented," and "mental retardation." To quote:To this end, for a successful prosecution of the crime of rape as punished under Art. 266-A, paragraph(l)(d), the following essential elements must be alleged and proven: the fact of sexual congress between the rapist and his victim, and the latter's mental age is that of a person below 12 years old.[24] Both facts were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
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.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.[23]
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 nonnal 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(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. (emphases supplied and citations omitted)
The prosecution was also
successful in proving the qualifying circumstance that transforms the
offense into qualified statutory rape. |
x x x xHere, it was established that accused-appellant is the live-in partner of the biological mother of AAA. Further, while accused-appellant denied that he was living in the same house as AAA, he admitted, nevertheless, that AAA visited their house every Sunday before going to church. To the mind of the Court, his relationship with AAA's biological mother, as well as the frequency of AAA's visits and meetings with accused-appellant every Sunday, is sufficient to clothe him of awareness, if not knowledge, of the condition of AAA.
(10) When the offender knew the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. (emphasis supplied)
(1) |
In cases where the death penalty
is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without
eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and |
(2) |
When circumstances are present warranting the
imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed
because of R.A. [No.] 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua
in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to
suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346. |