SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 131820. February 29, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO ATIENZA Y BAUTISTA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
ROLANDO ATIENZA Y BAUTISTA was charged
before the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Sur, with having raped
through force and intimidation one Maria Theresa Obias y Rañola, a 13-year old
minor. He was thereafter sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to
pay the private offended party P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and to pay
the costs.[1] Supremex
These are the facts on which the Decision
was based: Complaining witness Maria Theresa Obias was alone in the room which
her family was renting at Rizal Street, Goa, Camarines Sur, in the afternoon of
22 September 1996. At around 3:00 o'clock, 35-year old Rolando Atienza, her
mother's godson and a former neighbor, arrived inquiring about his Ninang
Feling. Ninang Feling is Maria Theresa's mother, Felicisima Obias,
who stood as principal sponsor in Rolando's wedding. Upon learning that she
(Maria Theresa) was alone, Rolando closed the door and windows, dragged her
towards her mother's bed and forcibly tried to remove her shorts, but she
cried, "Habo ko!" (I don't want!). But the accused succeeded
despite her resistance. He then laid on top of her and inserted his penis into
her vagina. All the while Maria Theresa was pushing him away saying, "Habo
ko, habo ko!"[2] After satisfying his lust, the accused gave Maria
Theresa two (2) five-peso bills[3] with a threat however before he left that he would
harm her family should she reveal the incident to her mother.[4] The offended party also testified that Rolando
Atienza had previously kissed and embraced her on three (3) occasions when her
family was still staying in Panday.[5]
Felicisima Obias, mother of Maria Theresa,
narrated that at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 22 September 1996,
after arriving home from church, she noticed that her youngest daughter, Maria
Theresa, was nervous. While dressing her up to go to church with her father and
a sister, Felicisima noticed two (2) five-peso bills tucked in Maria Theresa's
short pants. Since she was not in the habit of giving her daughter that much
money Felicisima asked where it came from. When Maria Theresa answered
tearfully that the money came from Rolando Atienza, Felicisima became
apprehensive and questioned her further. It was at that point when Maria
Theresa revealed what had happened to her.
After the physical examination conducted by
Dr. Diosdado Fuentebella, the Rural Health Physician of Goa, Camarines Sur,
Felicisima learned further that Maria Theresa was no longer a virgin even
before the incident as Rolando had sexually abused her previously.[6]
Dr. Fuentebella physically examined private
complainant the day after the incident.[7] He opined that she lost her physical virginity even
before 22 September 1996 but that her recent sexual contact was evidenced by
spermatozoa found upon microscopic examination of her vaginal secretion.[8] On cross-examination, Dr. Fuentebella conceded that
there was no sign of physical injury on the body of private complainant
although he clarified on redirect examination that it was not at all unusual in
cases where the woman already had healed hymenal lacerations as in the case of
Maria Theresa.[9] Esâ msc
Dr. Chona Belmonte, a psychiatrist from the
Bicol Regional Hospital and admitted by the trial court as a medical expert,[10] testified that she conducted a psychiatric
examination on private complainant and found her to be suffering from mild
mental retardation. Specifically, Dr. Belmonte said that Maria Theresa, in
addition to being poor in abstract reasoning and general knowledge, was quite
weak in critical judgment; that although private complainant was already
thirteen (13) years old at the time her intelligence quotient (IQ) was only
sixty-three (63) thus making her mental age equivalent only to that of an eight
(8)-year old child.[11]
The defense on the other hand presented only
the accused Rolando Atienza who admitted that he went to his Ninang Feling's
house in the early afternoon of 22 September 1996. However he claimed that he
did so only to collect on a debt. When he learned that his Ninang Feling
was in church he waited for her by lying on the sofa and looking over some
pictures in an album. He denied raping private complainant and claimed that he
left at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon after he got tired of waiting for
his Ninang Feling. To rebut the testimony that private complainant had
the mental capacity of an eight (8)-year old child, the defense presented
private complainant's Elementary School Permanent Record or DECS Form No. 137-A[12] showing that the latter obtained passing grades from
Grades I to VI.
On 7 October 1997 judgment was rendered
finding the accused guilty of rape. The trial court found the testimony of
private complainant more credible than the denial of the accused after noting
the simple manner by which private complainant testified, with no sign of
shuffling or falsehood. Moreover, in addition to finding that rape was indeed
committed through force the trial court concluded that the accused would still
be liable for rape, even if no such force was exerted, considering the mental age
of private complainant which was that of an eight (8)-year old child.
Accordingly, the he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and ordered to pay private complainant P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, plus the costs.[13] EsmmÓ is
Accused-appellant contends in this appeal
that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of rape as defined in par.
(2), Art. 335[14] of the Revised Penal Code, providing for a mode of
commission different from that charged in the Information, i.e., while the
Information charged him with rape committed through force and intimidation as
defined in par. (1), Art. 335, he was nevertheless eventually convicted of rape
under par. (2) thereof, i.e., rape of a woman who was deprived of reason,
including those with the mental capacity of a child below twelve (12) years
old.[15]
Accused-appellant strongly argues that he
was deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him, hence, he is entitled to acquittal.
We find no merit in accused-appellant's
contention. First, the trial court did not find him guilty solely
of rape committed under par. (2), Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code.[16] On the contrary, a plain reading of the appealed
Decision readily shows that the primary basis of his conviction was the finding
that he had carnal knowledge of the thirteen (13)-year old private complainant
through force and intimidation as properly charged in the Information. Thus the
court a quo said -
[T]he Court
believes that the accused Rolando Atienza sexually assaulted the offended
party, Maria Theresa Obias with the use of force. It is true that neither the
offended party nor the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Diosdado Fuentebella,
testified that there was physical force sustained by the former. But, force or
violence required in rape is relative x x x x Being relative, the force needed
to overpower the resistance of the offended party is that which is necessary to
consummate the offense. Besides, in the instant case, it is hard to believe
that a 13-year old girl, with a mental age of an eight (8) years of age would
voluntarily submit sexually to a man more than twice her age if no force was
exerted. Moreover, if the mental age of a woman above twelve (12) years of age
is that of a child below twelve (12) years of age voluntarily submits herself
to the bestial desire of the accused, or even if the circumstances of force or
intimidation do not exist, or of the victim being deprived of reason or
otherwise rendered unconscious, are absent, the accused would still be liable
for rape (People v. Bulaybulay, 248 SCRA 601). Jksmä â Ó
Secondly, even though private complainant's subnormal mental
capacity was not alleged in the Information, hence, conviction under par. (2),
Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code would normally be violative of
accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him,[17] it cannot be denied however that he did not object
to the presentation of Dr. Chona Belmonte who was precisely called by the
prosecution as its first witness to testify on private complainant's subnormal
mental capacity, that is, although the latter was already thirteen (13) years
old at the time of the incident, her mental capacity was equivalent only to that
of an eight (8)-year old child. While defense counsel did object to Dr.
Belmonte's Psychiatric Evaluation Report[18] during the prosecution's formal offer of documentary
evidence, he did so only on the ground that private complainant did not appear
to him to be feeble-minded during cross-examination.[19] Thus, instead of objecting outright to the
aforementioned prosecution evidence on the ground that private complainant's
alleged subnormal mental capacity was not properly alleged in the Information,
the defense in fact waived this procedural infirmity[20] by presenting evidence of its own to prove the
contrary, that is, that private complainant was normal as shown by her
Elementary School Permanent Record or DECS Form No. 137-A formally offered as
Exh. "1" for the defense. In People v. Abiera[21] the Court passing upon the very same contention
raised by herein accused-appellant ruled -
The appellant
maintains that he cannot be convicted of rape committed under one mode when the
information alleged another mode. He cites the case of People v. Pailano
(169 SCRA 649), where this Court held that to convict the appellant on the
finding that he had committed rape while the victim was unconscious or
otherwise deprived of reason- and not through force and intimidation, which was
the method alleged-would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
That case works
against appellant. In Pailano, this Court impliedly recognized that an
accused charged with rape through one mode of commission may still be convicted
of the crime if the evidence shows another mode of commission provided that the
accused did not object to such evidence (underscoring ours).
Finally, even assuming arguendo that accused-appellant's conviction
under par. (2) of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code should be set aside, he is
nevertheless still liable for rape committed through force and intimidation
since his guilt thereof, as properly charged in the Information, has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.[22]
The thirteen (13)-year old private
complainant tearfully recounted on the witness stand how accused-appellant
forcibly dragged her to her mother's bed upon learning that she was alone,
undressed her, sexually abused her despite her resistance - Habo ko! Habo
ko! (I don't want! I don't want!)[23] - and that after having succeeded in his evil
design, threatened her and her family with harm should she reveal the incident
to her mother.
justice
It is well-settled that testimonies of
victims who are young and of tender age deserve full credence[24] and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere
fabrication.[25] No woman, much less a child, would concoct a story
of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself
to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in fact, been a victim of rape and
impassioned to seek justice for the wrong done to her being.[26] What makes private complainant's testimony doubly
credible was the fact that no improper reason or ill motive could be imputed to
her as would impel her to falsely charge accused-appellant, her mother's godson
and a former neighbor, of such a grave crime as rape.
Moreover, private complainant's testimony
was corroborated by Dr. Diosdado Fuentebella who affirmed on the witness stand
the presence of spermatozoa in her vaginal secretion, consistent with the claim
of recent sexual contact. Although no sign of external physical injury was
noted on her body the same did not negate her claim of rape. We have held that
it was not necessary that there be marks of physical violence on the victim's
body because the exertion of irresistible force by the accused is not an
element of the offense,[27] more so when the force required to overwhelm a child
especially one who is of subnormal mental capacity like herein private
complainant, is obviously and understandably of a lesser degree than that
needed to overwhelm a normal adult.[28] Considering that accused-appellant was at the time
of the incident a thirty-five (35)-year old normal male while private
complainant was a puny thirteen (13)-year old with a mental capacity of an
eight (8)-year old, it is not really difficult to understand how
accused-appellant succeeded in his criminal design with minimal force - but
force nonetheless[29] - such that no manifestation of physical injury was
noted on private complainant.
Considering all the foregoing, we affirm the
trial court's finding of accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape. A slight modification of the Decision however is in order. The
trial court merely ordered accused-appellant to pay private complainant P50,000.00
as civil indemnity. But since moral damages are now automatically awarded to
victims of rape without need of proving the same,[30] the additional amount of P50,000.00 may properly
be awarded in favor of private complainant Maria Theresa Obias. Esä m
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from finding
accused-appellant ROLANDO ATIENZA Y BAUTISTA guilty of rape beyond reasonable
doubt, imposing upon him a prison term of reclusion perpetua and
ordering him to indemnify private complainant Maria Theresa Obias in the amount
of P50,000.00 is AFFIRMED. He is further ordered to pay her an
additional amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages in accordance with
recent jurisprudence. Costs against accused-appellant Rolando Atienza y
Bautista.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Decision penned by Judge Alfredo A. Cabral, RTC-Br. 30, San Jose, Camarines Sur; Rollo, pp. 17-29.
[2] TSN, 17 June 1997, pp. 8-9.
[3] Exhs. "D" and "E;" Original Records, pp. 60-61.
[4] TSN, 17 June 1997, p. 12.
[5] TSN, 17 June 1997, p. 20.
[6] TSN, 16 June 1997, pp. 13-23.
[7] See Exh. "B;" Original Records, p. 7; also TSN, 17 June 1997, p. 14.
[8] Exh. "B;" id., p. 7.
[9] TSN, 16 June 1997, pp. 9-10.
[10] TSN, 29 April 1997, p. 8.
[11] TSN, 29 April 1997, pp. 10-11.
[12] Exh. "1" for defense.
[13] Penned by Judge Alfredo A. Cabral, RTC-Br. 30, San Jose, Camarines Sur; Rollo, pp. 17-29.
[14] Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and x x x x.
[15] People v. Sunga, No. L-45083, 24 June 1985, 137 SCRA 130, 136; People v. Gallano, G.R. No. 51565, 23 October 1981, 108 SCRA 405, 413.
[16] See Note 14.
[17] People v. Pailano, G.R. No. 43602, 31 January 1989, 169 SCRA 649, 653.
[18] Exh. "A;" Records, pp. 48-49.
[19] TSN, 1 July 1997, p. 16; id., p. 137.
[20] People v. Abiera, G.R. No. 93947, 21 May 1993, 222 SCRA 378, 381-382 clarifying People v. Pailano (169 SCRA 649)
[21] Ibid.
[22] People v. Bugtong, G.R. No. 75853, 31 January 1989, 169 SCRA 797, 806.
[23] TSN, 17 June 1997, p. 11.
[24] People v. Ibalang, G.R. No. 109783, 24 February 1998, 286 SCRA 387, 399-400.
[25] People v. Molas, G.R. Nos. 88006-08, 2 March 1998, 286 SCRA 684, 690.
[26] People v. Bersabe, G. R. No. 122768, 27 April 1998, 289 SCRA 685, 695-696; People v. Antipona, G. R. No. 119071, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 328, 335; People v. Ramirez, G. R. No. 97920, 20 January 1997, 266 SCRA 335, 352.
[27] People v. Tayag, G.R. No. 105803, 12 October 1993, 227 SCRA 169, 177.
[28] People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 126921, 28 August 1998, 294 SCRA 728, 739-740.
[29] See Note 24.
[30] People v. Capillo, G. R. No. 123059, 25 November 1999 citing People v. Caballes, G. R. Nos. 102723-24, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 83 and People v. Calayca, G. R. No. 121212, 20 January 1999.