FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- EFREN CASTILLO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186533 Present:
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN,* PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: August 9, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEREZ, J.:
This
is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated
7 November 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00030-MIN which
affirmed with modification the Decision[2]
dated 14 April 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gingoog City, 10th
Judicial Region, Branch 43, in Criminal Case No. 2000-211 finding herein
appellant Efren Castillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
under Article 266-A, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, committed against AAA,[3] thereby imposing upon him the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The appellate court further ordered the
appellant to pay AAA P50,000.00 as moral damages, in addition to the P50,000.00
civil indemnity awarded by the trial court.
In
a Complaint[4] dated
That sometime in March 2000, in XXX, XXX City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], did then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously force and intimidate AAA, known by the [appellant] to be mentally retarded, and then forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the said AAA, against her will.
Contrary to and in
violation of Article 266-A, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by [Republic Act No.] 8353.[5]
When arraigned[6] on
At the pre-trial conference, both the
prosecution and the defense failed to make any stipulation of facts.[7] The pre-trial conference was then terminated
and trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the
following witnesses: AAA, the private offended party; Dr. Thessa Marie
Antillon-Malimas (Dr. Antillon-Malimas),[8]
the doctor in Gingoog District Hospital who examined AAA; BBB, the mother of
AAA, who was also presented as rebuttal witness; and Myrna delos
Reyes-Villanueva, the Guidance Psychologist at the Northern Mindanao Medical
Center who conducted psychological tests on AAA to determine her mental capacity.
On the basis of the testimonies of
the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution established that AAA was 18 years old[9]
when she was raped by the appellant. She
is the eldest of the four children of BBB and CCC, the deceased father of AAA. She began attending school when she was
already eight years old. AAA, however,
was not able to finish her Grade I level primarily because of her epileptic
seizures which started when she was nine years old. Since then she suffered epileptic seizures at
least once a month. During attacks, AAA
trembles and becomes stiff. AAA also had
difficulty understanding her lessons in school, she cannot write well and she
had poor memory. Compared to her younger
siblings, AAA had difficulty following instructions given to her at home and in
school.[10]
AAA’s ordeal began sometime in March
2000 when she approached the appellant in order to collect his debt for the
rice cake he bought from her mother.
Instead of settling his account, the appellant cuddled AAA until they
reached the house of a certain Atok located in Barangay Agay-ayan,
Days thereafter, such awful experience
of AAA was repeated when she was on her way to visit her aunt’s house. The appellant, who was then standing by the mango
grove, approached AAA, walked along with her and led her to a nearby chapel
also in Agay-ayan,
On
Subsequently,
AAA executed her sworn statement[15]
before Senior Police Officer 4 Myrna Z. Palad (SPO4 Palad), the investigator at
Gingoog City Police Station.
AAA
was also subjected to psychological tests to determine her mental capacity. The psychological tests administered by
Myrna Delos Reyes-Villanueva on AAA consist of the Draw-A-Person Test and the Bender
Visual Motor Test. The aforesaid psychological
tests showed that AAA has poor visual motor coordination and low level mental
functioning not within her chronological age, i.e., 21 years old at the time of her examination. In view of that result, Myrna Delos
Reyes-Villanueva concluded that AAA is suffering from mild to moderate mental
retardation with a mental age of 8 to 12 years old and can be educated up to
Grade VI level. She also noted that AAA
lacked personal hygiene and has a vague concept of big numbers and time, like
days of the week. She further declared
that AAA’s instinct to resist any sexual assault is always there; however, with
her low level mental functioning she could easily be deceived or persuaded by a
man to engage into sexual intercourse.[16] The result of AAA’s psychological tests was also
reduced into writing as evidenced by a Psychological Report[17]
dated
For its part, the defense presented
Rolando Castillo (Rolando), appellant’s father, and the appellant himself whose
testimony consists mainly of bare denial and alibi.
The appellant denied having raped
AAA. He stated that it was impossible
for him to rape AAA in March 2000 because for the entire period of the said
month he was harvesting coconuts from the land of a certain Elizabeth Camus
from
On
On
The appellant also insisted that he
was not arrested; instead, he surrendered voluntarily to the Barangay Captain of Agay-ayan,
Likewise, the appellant claimed that
he does not know of any reason why AAA would impute such a grave offense against
him. The only thing he could remember
was AAA’s mother, BBB, who got angry at him when he told her to get married
since she is now a widow. Since then BBB
did not talk to him anymore. The appellant
believed this could be the reason why AAA’s family charged him with rape.[22]
The defense likewise presented
appellant’s father, Rolando, who categorically admitted that AAA is mentally
retarded.[23] Rolando also disclosed that he accompanied
the appellant to AAA’s place to talk to her mother and ask forgiveness in case
the charge against him was true so that the matter will no longer reach the
court. The appellant then asked
forgiveness from AAA’s mother by saying, “Ya,
forgive me because the charge against me is not true.” Then BBB allegedly replied, “We cannot
withdraw the case ‘Fren because it was already filed in court.” Rolando also divulged that immediately after
they went to AAA’s house, there were already police officers who were about to
arrest the appellant but the latter ran away.
When the appellant went home, he told him to surrender, which the
appellant obeyed.[24]
On rebuttal, BBB disclosed that even
prior to the filing of the instant case the appellant already admitted that he
truly molested AAA. The appellant,
indeed, went to their house in August 2000 asking forgiveness from her but she
told him that the case was already in court.
BBB also clarified that the house of Atok where the first rape incident
happened was not yet demolished in 1998.
The house demolition happened only in 2000. She was certain about this because during the
demolition she was there gathering firewood.[25]
The trial court, convinced on the
merits of the prosecution’s case, rendered a Decision on P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity.
The records were originally
transmitted to this Court on appeal. In
view, however, of this Court’s ruling in People
v. Mateo,[26] the case was
transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
In his brief, the appellant assigned
the following errors:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT [AAA] IS A MENTAL RETARDATE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE SUCH MENTAL RETARDATION.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE [APPELLANT] OF THE CRIME OF RAPE UNDER ARTICLE 266-A, par. 1(B), AS AMENDED BY R.A. 8353, DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[27]
The Court of Appeals, taking into
consideration the aforesaid assignment of errors and after a thorough study of
the records of the case, rendered the assailed Decision dated P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The records were then forwarded to this Court for further review.
This Court affirms appellant’s
conviction.
Appellant contends that the records
are bereft of any evidence that would conclusively show that AAA was suffering
from mental retardation. BBB’s declaration
that AAA is a slow thinker does not sufficiently establish AAA’s mental
retardation. Further, the “expert
witness qualification” of the prosecution’s supposed expert witness is highly
questionable because she had not acquired any doctorate degree in the field of
psychology or psychiatry. More so, the
psychological tests administered by her on AAA were inadequate to establish AAA’s
mental capacity.
Appellant anchors his argument for
acquittal on the alleged failure of the prosecution to establish AAA’s mental
retardation to make him guilty of rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(b), of the
Revised Penal Code. Appellant concludes
that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We reject appellant’s position.
In rape cases, the gravamen of the
offense is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her
consent.[28]
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 8353, states:
ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed.
1) By a man who 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. [Emphasis supplied].
It can be deduced from the
aforequoted provision that for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution
must prove that; (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman,
and (2) he accomplished such act
through force or intimidation, or when
she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under 12
years of age or is demented.[29] The term “woman
deprived of reason” includes one suffering from mental retardation.[30]
Clearly, carnal
knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under the aforesaid
provisions of law. Proof of force or
intimidation is not necessary as a mental retardate is not capable of giving
consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of
sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation
of the latter.[31]
In People v. Dalandas,[32] citing People v. Dumanon,[33] this Court held that mental
retardation can be proven by evidence other than medical/clinical evidence,
such as the testimony of witnesses and even the observation by the trial court.[34]
Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence explicitly provides:
SEC. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. – The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding-
(a) x x x
(b) x x x
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. [Emphasis supplied].
Accordingly, it is competent for the
ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or mental condition of a
person, provided the witness has had
sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of
the person in question. Commonly, it
is required that the witness details the factors and reasons upon which he
bases his opinion before he can testify as to what it is. As the Supreme Court of Vermont said: “A non-expert witness may give his opinion as
to the sanity or insanity of another, when based upon conversations or dealings
which he has had with such person, or upon his appearance, or upon any fact
bearing upon his mental condition, with the witness’ own knowledge and
observation, he having first testified to such conversations, dealings,
appearance or other observed facts, as the basis for his opinion.” [35]
The mother of an offended party in a rape
case, though not a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and mental condition
of the party, how she was born, what she is suffering from, and what her
attainments are, is competent to testify on the matter.[36] Thus, even though the Guidance Psychologist
who examined AAA may not qualify as an expert witness, though the psychological
tests conducted by her on AAA may not be accurate to determine AAA’s mental capacity,
such circumstance is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause.
In the case at bench, BBB testified
that AAA has been suffering from epilepsy since she was nine years old, which
is one of the reasons why AAA was not able to finish her Grade I level. AAA also had to stop schooling because she
had difficulties understanding her lessons in school, she cannot write well,
she had poor memory and she had difficulty answering even the simplest question
asked of her. BBB further stated that AAA
is the eldest of her four children; however, compared to her younger siblings, AAA
had a hard time comprehending the instructions given to her at home and in
school.
In the same way, though the Guidance
Psychologist who examined AAA may not be qualified as an expert witness, her
observations, however, as regards the appearance, manner, habits and behavior
of AAA, is also admissible in evidence as an ordinary witness’ testimony. Even before the Guidance Psychologist
administered the psychological tests on AAA, she already noticed that AAA
lacked personal hygiene. While
conversing with AAA, she observed that AAA has low level mental functioning as
she has difficulty understanding simple things, has a vague concept of big
numbers and time ─ like days of the week, and has regressed behavior that
is not congruent to her age, i.e., 21
years old at the time of her examination.
She also stated that she was not able to administer the Purdue Non-Language Test, which is an Intelligence Quotient Test, on AAA due to the latter’s
inability to identify the items therein.
This Court, in People v. Dalandas, clarified that a mental retardate, in general, exhibits a slow rate of maturation,
physical and/or psychological, as well as impaired learning capacity. Further, the mental retardation of persons
and the degrees thereof may be manifested by their overt acts, appearance,
attitude and behavior. The dentition,
manner of walking, ability to feed oneself or
attend to personal hygiene, capacity to develop resistance or immunity to
infection, dependency on others for
protection and care and inability to achieve intelligible speech may be
indicative of the degree of mental retardation of a person. All these may be testified on by ordinary
witnesses who come in contact with an alleged mental retardate.[37]
It bears stressing that the
deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete; mental
abnormality or deficiency is sufficient.[38] Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that AAA’s
impaired learning capacity, lack of personal hygiene and difficulty in
answering simple questions, as testified to by her mother and the Guidance
Psychologist who had an opportunity to observe her appearance, manner, habits
and behavior, are indicative that she is truly suffering from some degree of mental
retardation.
More telling is the trial court’s own
observation on AAA’s manner of testifying that confirms the fact that AAA is a
mental retardate, to wit:
Court: Alright, Order.
The prosecution presented their first witness in the person of the victim herself, AAA, who seemed to be a retardate.
The witness finds it hard to answer simple questions and it has to be repeated to ask questions in a simple way as possible in order for her to understand.
In the course of her direct testimony it developed and appeared that she was already tired and she could not concentrate well probably because of her predicament she being also an epileptic and it is for this reason that the prosecution and the defense agreed that the cross examination of the witness be continued later in order to give her a chance to rest x x x.[39] [Emphases supplied.]
For purposes of determining the mental
capacity of a person, this Court held that the personal observation of the
trial judge suffices even in the absence of an expert opinion.[40] Hence, the aforesaid findings of the trial
court are entitled to great weight and respect being in the best position as it
had the opportunity to hear and observe the demeanor, conduct and attitude of
AAA while testifying.
Surprisingly, though the appellant
vehemently contends that the prosecution was not able to establish AAA’s mental
retardation, he failed to notice that his own father, Rolando, during his
testimony before the court a quo,
categorically admitted and confirmed that, indeed, AAA is mentally retarded and
feeble-minded. Here we quote appellant’s
father’s testimony:
Q: Will you agree with me that this AAA is somewhat mentally retardate?
A: Yes, Sir. That is really true.
x x x x
Q: But you knew for a fact that this AAA is a feeble-minded?
A: Yes, Your Honor.[41]
Such testimony puts beyond doubt that
AAA is truly a mental retardate. Her
condition was so apparent to people who have had an opportunity to interact and
deal with her that even appellant’s own father, who happens to be AAA’s
neighbor, could not deny her mental state.
The prosecution evidence settled this issue.
As well and as much established is
the fact of sexual congress between the appellant and AAA.
AAA was able to recall and narrate in
detail before the court a quo how she
was ravished by the appellant on two occasions; first, at the house of a certain Atok and second, outside the chapel. On
the first rape incident, AAA vividly described how the appellant cuddled her
until they reached the house of a certain Atok.
Once inside, the appellant made her lie down on the bed and removed her
short pants and panty. The appellant
subsequently undressed himself and inserted his penis into her vagina. On the second rape, AAA similarly recalled
how the appellant led her to a nearby chapel.
While they were outside the chapel, the appellant undressed her and
likewise removed his shorts and underwear and had sexual intercourse with her
in a standing position. Such testimony of
AAA can be characterized as categorical and straightforward. Also, as noted by the trial court, although AAA
could not easily grasp the questions asked, her answers were nonetheless marked
with candidness even as they were given simplemindedly.
It bears emphasis 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 hands of the accused.[42] Moreover, it is 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.[43]
It is also worth stressing that
during AAA’s testimony, she positively identified the appellant as the person
who had raped her.[44] Thus, the straightforward narration of AAA of
what transpired, accompanied by her categorical identification of appellant as
the malefactor, sealed the case for the prosecution.[45]
The fact of sexual congress between
AAA and the appellant was also supported by the medical findings of healed
hymenal lacerations at
The records also failed to show that
AAA was prompted by ill motive in imputing such a grave offense against the
appellant. The absence of evidence of
improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify against the
appellant strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive
exists and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[47] The claim of the appellant that his remark on
AAA’s mother, that since she was already a widow she should already get married,
could possibly trigger the filing of this case against him is highly
implausible. As the trial court had
stated, it is quite unbelievable that BBB’s anger could have been triggered by
such an innocuous joke to the extent of allowing the examination of AAA’s private
parts and subjecting AAA to the humiliation of declaring in open court the
sexual molestation she underwent in the hands of the appellant. Besides, no mother in her right mind would
possibly stoop so low as to subject her daughter to the hardships and shame
concomitant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings. It is unnatural for a parent to use her
offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her daughter to
embarrassment and even stigma. It is
hard to believe that a mother would sacrifice her own daughter and present her
to be the subject of a public trial if she, in fact, has not been motivated by
an honest desire to have the culprit punished.[48]
It is also worthy to note the testimony
of the appellant that he, together with his father, and a certain Eddie Camus,
went to the house of AAA to have the case settled, which testimony was
corroborated by his own father.
Appellant’s father went further in saying that they went to AAA’s house
to ask for forgiveness. AAA’s mother,
BBB, confirmed appellant’s importunity. This
Court has ruled that an act of asking for forgiveness is undeniably indicative
of guilt.[49] If the appellant so believed that he did not
commit any wrongdoing against AAA, he would not bother to go to AAA’s house to have
the case settled and to ask for forgiveness.
The array of the prosecution evidence
stresses the weakness of appellant’s defense of denial and alibi.
Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and, unless supported by clear and
convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of
the victim, who in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified
the appellant who sexually molested her.[50] For alibi
to prosper, the accused must show that it was impossible for him to have been
at the scene of the commission of the crime at the time of its commission.[51]
In the instant case, the appellant
claimed that he cannot rape AAA in March 2000 because for the entire period of
the said month he was harvesting coconuts from the land of a certain Elizabeth
Camus from
In sum, AAA’s straightforward
testimony, as well as her unwavering and positive identification of the
appellant as her defiler and tormentor, corroborated by the medical findings
conducted by Dr. Antillon-Malimas, was sufficient to convict the
appellant. The flimsy and self-serving defenses
of denial and alibi of the appellant
failed to destroy the truthfulness and the credibility of AAA’s testimony.[52]
Although the complaint specifically
alleged the circumstance of appellant’s knowledge of the victim’s mental
retardation at the time of the commission of the crime of rape, which qualifies
the crime and makes it punishable by death under Article 266-B, paragraph 10[53] of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to prove the same during
trial. This Court, therefore, is fully convinced
that the trial court and the appellate court correctly convicted the appellant
for the crime of simple rape[54] under Article 266-A, par. 1(b) of
the Revised Penal Code, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.[55]
Anent the award of damages, civil
indemnity ex delicto is mandatory
upon finding of the fact of rape while moral damages is awarded upon such
finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim
had actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[56] Exemplary
damages, on the other hand, are awarded under Article 2230[57]
of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or
qualifying.[58] Thus, this Court similarly affirms the P50,000.00
civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages awarded by the lower courts
to AAA. However, there being no
aggravating circumstance that can be considered, no exemplary damages can be
awarded to AAA.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00030-MIN dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 876, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin is designated as additional member in place of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. who is on official leave under the Court’s Wellness Program.
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and
Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring. Rollo, pp. 4-33.
[2] Penned
by Presiding Judge Editho E. Lucagbo, CA rollo,
pp. 43-53.
[3] This is pursuant
to the ruling of this Court in People of
the Philippines v. Cabalquinto [G.R. No. 167693,
The Supreme Court took note of the legal mandate on the utmost confidentiality of proceedings involving violence against women and children set forth in Sec. 29 of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act; Sec. 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004; and Sec. 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as Rules on Violence Against Women and Their Children effective 15 November 2004.
[4] Records,
pp. 2-3.
[5]
[6] Order
dated
[7] Pre-Trial
Order dated
[8] From
2001 up to the present, she is already at the
[9] In
the direct testimony of AAA conducted on
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13] TSN,
[14] Records
(Folder of Exhibits), p. 1.
[15]
[16] TSN,
[17] Records
(Folder of Exhibits), pp. 11-12.
[18] TSN,
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] TSN,
[24]
[25] TSN,
[26] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[27] CA rollo, p. 29.
[28] People v. Ybañez, 404 Phil. 423, 429 (2001).
[29] People v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294,
[30] People v. Bacaling, 447 Phil. 197, 203
(2003).
[31] People v. Dela Paz, supra note 29 at 376.
[32] 442 Phil. 688 (2002).
[33] 401 Phil. 658 (2000).
[34] People v. Dalandas, supra note 32 at 697.
[35] People v. Duranan, 402 Phil. 205,
215-216 (2001) citing V. J. Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court of the
[36] People v. Duranan, id. at 215.
[37] People v. Dalandas, supra note 32 at
696-697.
[38] People v. Atuel, G.R. No. 106962,
[39] TSN,
[40] People v. Bacaling, supra note 30 at
204.
[41] TSN,
[42] People v. Dela Paz, supra note 29 at 381-382.
[43] People v. Agunos, 375 Phil. 315, 323-324
(1999).
[44] TSN,
[45] People
v. Macapal, Jr., G.R. No. 155335,
[46] People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301,
325-326 (2004).
[47] People v. Garin, 476 Phil. 455, 472
(2004).
[48] People v. Jose, 367 Phil. 68, 78 (1999).
[49] People v. Erardo, G.R. No. 119368,
[50] People v. Agravante, 392 Phil. 543, 551
(2000).
[51] People v. Kimura, 471 Phil. 895, 919-920
(2004).
[52] People v. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756,
[53] ART. 266-B. Penalties. x x x.
x x x x
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
x x 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 the commission of the crime.
[54] ART. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed.-Rape is committed:
1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) x x x;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
x x x. (Revised Penal Code).
[55] ART. 266-B. Penalties.-Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceeding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. (Revised Penal Code).
[56] People v. Calongui, G.R. No. 170566,
[57] Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
[58] People
v. Gragasin, G.R. No. 186496,