Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - PAUL ALIPIO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 185285 Present: CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES,* VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: October
5, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
On appeal is the June 10, 2008 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02354 that affirmed the April
21, 2006 Decision[2] in Criminal Case No.
01-427 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65 in Sorsogon City. The RTC
found accused-appellant Paul Alipio guilty of rape and imposed upon him the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
An Information filed with the RTC charged Paul with one count of rape
allegedly committed as follows:
That sometime in the month of June, 2000 at Sitio Liman, Barangay San Francisco, Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with one [AAA],[3] a mentally retarded woman against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.[4]
Arraigned on May 13, 2002 with the assistance of his
counsel de officio, Paul entered a
plea of “not guilty.”
During the pre-trial conference, the defense admitted
Paul’s identity and of his being a
resident of Sitio Liman,
In the ensuing trial, the prosecution offered in
evidence the oral testimonies of the
private complainant, AAA, BBB, her mother, and Dr. Imelda Escuadra, among
others.
For its part, the defense presented in evidence the
testimonies of Norma de Leon, Dr. Chona C. Belmonte, Saul Alipio, and Jose
Genagaling.
The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
AAA is a 41-year old mentally retarded woman whom
Marilou Gipit Alipio often hired to watch over her children whenever the latter
is out of her house. AAA stopped schooling after finishing Grade VI in a local
public school. Marilou is Paul’s sister.
Sometime in
June 2000, Marilou sent AAA to Sitio
Liman,
While about to head for home, AAA heard Paul calling
her from his house. Suddenly, Paul held her hand, pushed her inside and, while
covering AAA’s mouth, brought her to his bedroom. He then removed her shorts
and panty and likewise, undressed himself. Paul then went on top of her, kissed
her, and fondled her breasts. Eventually, he entered her, first using his
finger, then his penis. Before finally letting the crying AAA go, however, Paul
threatened her with death should she disclose to anybody what had just happened
between them.
Several months later, BBB, AAA’s mother, noticed that
the latter had missed her monthly period. With some coaxing, AAA told her
mother what Paul had done to her. Thereupon, AAA’s mother went to see Marilou
and her father to apprise them about AAA’s pregnancy. The Alipios promised
financial help, albeit Paul would later disown responsibility for AAA’s
condition. When brought to a doctor for medical examination, AAA was found to
be seven (7) months pregnant. AAA eventually gave birth to a baby girl.
Psychiatric evaluation done by Dr. Escuadra revealed
that AAA, although 42 years old at that time, had the mental capacity and
disposition of a nine or 10 year-old child. Her intelligence quotient (I.Q.) of
60 was way below the average I.Q. of 90, clearly indicating a mental
retardation case. When cross-examined, Dr. Escuadra described AAA as possessing
a certain level of comprehension of incidents based on experience which she is
capable of relaying and relating to. To the doctor, AAA was very well qualified
to be a witness provided the questions are asked in a simple manner.[5]
Version of the Defense
The testimonies of the four (4) witnesses the defense
presented were intended to establish Paul’s innocence of the crime charged and
that he himself was a psychiatric case.
Norma de
Leon, a laundrywoman
employed by Marilou and who acknowledged seeing AAA often in Marilou’s house,
testified being in Liman to get bamboos at the time the alleged rape incident happened.
At around 12 noon of that day, while she and Paul were eating lunch at the
kiosk, AAA arrived. After they had finished eating, she saw AAA trying to drag
Paul inside his house, but the latter pushed AAA towards the wooden portion of
the kiosk. Paul then left for Polot, leaving AAA behind.
Dr. Chona
C. Belmonte, a psychiatrist at the
When recalled to the witness stand after conducting a
follow-up examination, Dr. Belmonte stated that Paul was in a much better
condition and was fit to stand trial, being free from any perceptual
disturbances and acute psychotic signs and symptoms. To Dr. Belmonte, Paul could give positive
answers and was aware of the consequences, if found guilty.
Saul Alipio, Paul’s
father, expressed the belief that Paul could not have committed the crime of
which he was accused. At the time the alleged molestation transpired, Paul was,
according to Saul, at the farm gathering coconuts.
Jose
Genagaling, a coconut farmer and Saul’s compadre, testified that sometime in June 2000, or on the day the
rape incident occurred, he was processing copra at the copra kiln of Saul. With
him at the copra kiln at that time was Paul.
Nothing unusual happened in Saul’s house and copra kiln on that day.
Ruling of the Trial Court
After trial, the RTC convicted Paul of rape penalized under
paragraph 1(a) and (d), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).[6]
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused PAUL ALIPIO’s GUILT having been established beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the victim AAA in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another [P50,000.00] as moral damages, and to pay the costs.
The preventive imprisonment already served by the accused shall be credited in the service of his sentence pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Paul filed a notice of appeal and the records of the
case were transmitted to the CA.
Ruling
of the Appellate Court
By decision of June 10, 2008, the CA denied Paul’s
appeal and affirmed the RTC’s judgment.
Hence, we have this appeal.
In response to the Court’s Resolution for the
submission of supplemental briefs, both accused-appellant and
plaintiff-appellee manifested that they are no longer filing their respective
supplemental briefs considering that such briefs would only contain arguments also
raised in their respective appeal briefs filed before the CA.
It is accused-appellant’s submission that the RTC and CA gravely erred:
1.
x x x in
giving credence to the apparently incredible testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses; and
2.
x x x in rendering a verdict of conviction
despite the fact that the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.[8]
In fine, accused-appellant assails the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of AAA and the
adequacy of its evidence.
The appeal is denied for lack of merit.
Testimony of the Victim Is Credible
Accused-appellant maintains that the trial
court erred in giving full credence to and reliance on AAA’s inculpatory
statements in the witness box, it being his contention that her account of what
purportedly happened reeks of inconsistencies and does not jibe with the normal
flow of things. As asserted, it is quite unnatural for a woman finding herself
in a sexually-charged situation not make an outcry or use her hands to ward off
the advances of a sex fiend. According to him, it is contrary to human
experience too that a person with lustful desire would run after the intended
victim in a place that is obviously not secluded.
Accused-appellant draws attention to the fact
that when she testified in court, AAA stated that accused-appellant ran after
her but did not call out to her. Yet, in her statement before the police, she
made it appear that he called out to her.
The Court is not persuaded.
First of all, the Court cannot understand how
accused-appellant can talk of and expect, as a matter of course, a “natural”
reaction from AAA who is unquestionably mentally retarded, one who does not
have a good grasp of information, and who lacks the capacity to make a mental
calculation of events unfolding before her eyes. AAA can hardly be described as
a normal person with fully developed mental faculties. Hence, it is not fair to
judge her according to what is natural or unnatural for normal persons.
As to accused-appellant’s assertion that it is
contrary to human experience that a person with lustful design would run after
his prey in a place less than private, suffice it to say that lust does not respect either time or place;[9]
that sexual abuse is committed in the most unlikely places. The evil in man has
no conscience––the beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving
him to commit rape anywhere, even in places where people congregate such as in
parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where
there are other occupants.[10]
To be sure, AAA’s testimony is not without
discrepancies and inconsistencies, given of course her mental state. It cannot
be over-emphasized, however, that the inconsistencies pointed out by
accused-appellant strike this Court as trivial. Rape is a harrowing experience,
the exact details of which are usually not remembered. Inconsistencies, even if they do exist, tend
to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness, for they show
that the testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[11]
Trivial inconsistencies, like the matter of whether or not accused-appellant
called out on AAA before he forcibly grabbed her hands, do not, to borrow from People
v. Cristobal, rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness
rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of
scheming.[12]
Minor inconsistencies in testimonies should be
disregarded. This rule becomes all the more applicable when the witness is
mentally ill. The Court said as much in People
v. Atuel:
Complainant was mentally ill at the time of the incident, and consequently could not be expected to remember in precise detail all that actually happened to her. Her severe traumatic experience was too much for her unstable mental faculties… Her testimony as to what had happened certainly cannot constitute gospel truth… We have said that a rape victim is not and cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience. And the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony. On the contrary, it is a recognized axiom in rape cases that inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony do not detract from the vital fact that, in truth, she had been abused. Testimonial discrepancies could have been caused by the natural fickleness of the memory, which variances tend to strengthen rather than weaken credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[13]
Verily, accused-appellant cannot exculpate
himself by riding on the alleged inconsistencies in AAA’s testimonies.
Errorless accounts of what had transpired cannot be expected especially when a
witness is recounting specifics of an agonizing experience. To be sure, the
trial court had not made much, as it should not have, of what accused-appellant
considered inconsistencies in AAA’s account of what happened immediately before
and during her ordeal.
The unyielding rule has been that the trial
court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is
deserving of the highest respect because of its unique opportunity to observe
the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under
grilling examination.[14]
Such assessment binds the Court except when the assessment was reached
arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied
some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could have affected
the results of the case.[15]
None of these exceptions exists in this case.
In fact, the trial court found AAA’s testimony
clear, convincing, and credible. The trial court wrote:
The very CANDID,
STRAIGHTFORWARD, and CONSISTENT testimony of the RAPE victim, [AAA], narrates
with definiteness that she was sexually abused by accused, Paul Alipio @ Ayona,
in the latter’s house in Sitio Liman, Bgy.
AAA’s mental condition, to stress, does not prevent
her from being a competent and credible witness. As has been held, a mental
retardate is not disqualified from being a witness; the retardate’s mental
condition does not, on that ground alone, vitiate his or her credibility.[17]
If the mental retardate’s testimony is coherent, it is admissible in court.[18]
Evidently, the trial court had ascertained the veracity and credibility of
AAA’s testimony sufficient to support a finding of conviction, thus:
To the mind of the
court, the testimony alone of the retarded victim will SUFFICE to carry solely
for the prosecution the burden of proof required by the law and rules. The
victim, [AAA], was CONSISTENT in all the declarations she executed before the
police (Sworn Statement), and the testimony she gave before this court during
the trial – that she was RAPED by accused PAUL ALIPIO @ AYONA in their house in
Sitio Liman, Bgy.
To reiterate, the issue of credibility is a
matter best addressed by the trial court that has the opportunity to observe
the demeanor of witnesses while testifying. Great weight and even finality must
be accorded to factual findings of the trial court especially its assessments
of witnesses and their credibility, except when there is a clear showing of
arbitrariness or oversight of some facts or circumstances of substance.[20]
The Court finds no reason to overturn
the findings of the trial court.
Likewise, it is a well-entrenched jurisprudence
that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to the successful
prosecution for rape inasmuch as her testimony alone, if credible, is
sufficient to convict the perpetrator of the crime.[21]
Thus, accused-appellants’ insistence that there should have been a medical
examination and a medical certificate showing the condition of AAA’s hymen to
corroborate her testimony is clearly untenable.
It bears stressing that a broken hymen is not an essential element of
the crime of rape.[22]
And as aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General, AAA was already
pregnant when BBB found out about the rape and that the former had already
given birth when she testified, making a hymeneal examination a worthless
exercise.[23]
At this juncture, it bears to state that sexual
intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape.[24]
As such, the question of whether the circumstances of force or intimidation are
absent is of no moment to accused-appellant’s liability for rape, albeit the
trial court held that he employed force and intimidation on the feebleminded
AAA.
Exempting Circumstance of Insanity Is Absent
In a bid to escape from criminal liability,
accused-appellant invokes insanity. He contends that the psychiatrist who
examined him consistently testified that there was a high possibility that he
was suffering from schizoaffective disorder when the alleged rape incident
happened.
We are not convinced.
The moral and legal presumption is always in
favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal
condition of a person.[25]
It is improper to assume the contrary.[26] This presumption, however, may be overcome by
evidence of insanity, which, under Art. 12(1) of the RPC, exempts a person from
criminal liability.
In People
v. Formigones,[27]
the Court has established a more stringent standard for insanity to be an
exempting circumstance. There, it was held that, for insanity to be appreciated
in favor of the accused, there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence
in committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason or there is a
complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of the will.
Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.[28]
The evidence offered by the defense in this
case miserably failed to establish clearly and convincingly the presence of the
stringent criterion for insanity. On the contrary, the evidence tended to show,
albeit impliedly, that accused-appellant was not deprived of reason at all and
can still distinguish right from wrong when, after satisfying his lust, he
threatened AAA not to tell anybody about what he had done; otherwise, she would
be killed. This single episode irresistibly implies, for one, that accused-appellant
knew what he was doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a secret. And
for another, it indicated that the crime was committed during one of
accused-appellant’s lucid intervals. In this regard, no less than his father
admitted in open court that there were times when his son was in his proper
senses.[29]
Given the above perspective, the trial court
correctly downplayed accused-appellant’s plea of insanity. The Court cites with
approval the following excerpts from the RTC’s decision:
Dr. Belmonte, the
psychiatrist who evaluated the mental condition of the accused testified x x x
that the accused was given psychological testing to fully assess his mental
condition, and he was found to have an average mental condition. In the
intelligent quotient test accused has an average mental function while in the
projective test there were several indicators noted, since at the time of the testing
accused showed a lot of immaturity, stubbornness and irritability. That it
would be difficult for them to employ a mechanism that would prevent selective
responses on the part of the accused. They just observed the patient and that
is also the reason why they give psychological testing, because in that way
they can determine whether the subject is in conflict with his personality.
That during those times the accused had his sessions with the psychologist and
some doctors accused was barely consistent and their evaluation shows
consistent result. Schizoaffective disorder is always precipitated by certain
traumatic experience. That there is really a need for them to gather
information to know whether the accused was already afflicted with that mental
disorder sometime in 1987 or 2000. That the schizoaffective disorder of Paul
Alipio is only temporary in character hence, it can be treated. The duration of
the treatment would depend on the progress of the patient.
The doctor further
stated during the clarificatory questioning propounded by the Court, that there
is a high possibility that sometime in 2001 when the alleged rape incident took
place implicating the accused as the rapist, accused was not in his normal
mental condition. During that time this schizoaffective disorder was already in
effect. THAT SHE HAS NO CATEGORICAL FINDINGS YET INSOFAR AS THE SENSE OF
DISCERNMENT OF THE ACCUSED BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG IS CONCERNED. x x x
Prescinding from the
foregoing testimony of the doctor, it is clear therefore that the mental
disorder of accused Paul Alipio is only temporary in character and can be
treated. Moreover, although the probability is high that in year 2000 when the
rape incident took place accused was already suffering from schizoaffective
disorder, said doctor has not come up with any categorical findings yet
relative to the sense of discernment of the accused when it comes to what is
RIGHT and what is WRONG.[30]
With the view we take of this case, we find the
prosecution to have discharged its burden of proving the guilt of
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. And needless to stress, guilt beyond
reasonable doubt only denotes moral certainty, not absolute certainty. Moral
certainty is that degree of proof which, to an unprejudiced mind, produces
conviction.[31]
The crime
committed being in the nature of simple rape, the award by the trial court, as
affirmed by the CA, of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto for the
victim and the same amount as moral damages is in line with prevailing case law
and is accordingly affirmed. Accused-appellant must, however, pay AAA PhP
30,000 by way of exemplary damages as a measure to deter other individuals with
aberrant sexual tendencies pursuant to current jurisprudence.[32]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA
Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02354 finding accused-appellant Paul Alipio
guilty of the crime charged is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that he is
ordered to pay AAA exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 30,000.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-19. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and Ricardo R. Rosario.
[3] In accordance with Republic Act No. 9262 and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 16, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real name of the victim, her personal circumstances, and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity are not disclosed to protect her privacy. Fictitious initials are used.
[6] Rape committed (a) through the use of force, threat or intimidation; or (d) when the offended party is under 12 years old or is demented even though none of the other circumstances specified in par. 1 of Art. 266-A is present.
[9] People v. Segundo, G.R. No. 88751, December 27, 1993, 228 SCRA 691, 695-696; People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 68209, December 21, 1993, 228 SCRA 648, 655; People v. Ulili, G.R. No. 103403, August 24, 1993, 225 SCRA 594, 604.
[10] People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 179190, January 20, 2009; citing People v. Agbayani, G.R. No. 122770, January 16, 1998, 284 SCRA 315, 340.
[14] People v. Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001, 369 SCRA 47; People v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, December 6, 1995, 250 SCRA 676.