|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 188901
Present: CORONA,
C. J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, DEL CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: December 15, 2010 |
|
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEREZ, J.:
Before
this Court is an Appeal,[1]
seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision[2]
dated 11 May 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Decision[3] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 12 convicting
appellant Gilbert Castro y Aguilar (Castro) of the crime of rape, with
modification as to the amount of damages awarded to the victim.
In
line with the ruling of this Court in People
v. Cabalquinto,[4] the real name and identity
of the rape victim, is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to
represent her. Also, the personal
circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or
compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, are not
disclosed in this decision. Instead, the
rape victim shall herein be referred to as AAA; her mother XYZ; and her uncle,
BBB.
THE FACTS
The
victim in this case is an 18-year old lass with a mental capacity akin to a
5-year old child. Due to her poor
learning capacity, she has not even finished Grade 1 and is unable to read and
write.
The
accused, on the other hand, was then 22 years old and a second cousin of the
victim. He testified that he has known the victim for 3 years prior to 5
February 2002, the alleged first rape incident.[5] They are neighbors whose residences are just
two meters apart.[6]
On
14 February 2003, Castro was charged with two counts of rape before the RTC in
informations[7] the accusatory portions of
which read:
Criminal Case No. 771-M-2003
That
on or about the 5th day of February, 2002, in the municipality of
San Ildefonso, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with the use of bladed weapon,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force,
violence and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of the
said AAA, a mentally retarded, a fact known to the accused, against her will
and without her consent.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 772-M-2003
That
on or about the 27th day November, 2002, in the municipality of San
Ildefonso, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence and intimidation and
with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of the said AAA, a mentally retarded,
a fact known to the accused, against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Upon
arraignment, Castro, with the assistance of counsel, entered separate pleas of not
guilty to the charges. Thereafter, the cases were consolidated and trial on the
merits ensued. In the course of the
trial, two versions arose.
Version of the Prosecution
As
summarized by the RTC and adopted for the most part by the CA, the version of
the prosecution[8] is as follows:
This
resolves the alleged rape committed twice on an 18-year old woman named AAA
whose IQ & Projected Test concluded at the National Center for Mental
Health by psychologist Nimia C. de Guzman resulted to a finding that “Level of
intelligence is appraised under the Moderate Level of Mental Retardation
(Imbecile) with a numerical IQ of 43 and mental age of 5 years 6 months. xxx Personality
profile pictures an immature and inadequate person who has not achieved full
development of her learning and social skills.” xxx (See Exh. “D,”
Psychological Report) (at pp. 6-20; TSN, April 14, 2005).
The medico-legal examination conducted on
November 29, 2002, to determine the presence of physical signs of sexual abuse
has shown that she “is in non-virgin state, physically,” although “there are no
signs of application of any form of trauma at the time of examination” (See
Exh. “A,” Medico-Legal Report) (at pp. 2-10; TSN, June 26, 2003).
xxx
The accused, Gilbert Castro y Aguilar,
then 22 years old, single, was AAA’s neighbor whose house was just more than
two (2) meters away. Despite that
proximity between their houses and knowing her for years, he denied on the
witness stand ever talking to her or to any member of her family. He was arrested at his house on November 28,
2002, where he contended to be on those dates and time he allegedly had carnal
knowledge of the mentally retarded victim (at pp. 3-5, TSN, March 23, 2006; pp.
4-7, TSN, June 22, 2006).
From the witness stand AAA pointed to
accused Castro as the man who raped her for two times, first, during the wake
for a deceased neighbor or supposedly on February 5, 2002, when he brought her
under a mango tree where he made her lie down on banana leaves and stripped her
off her clothings before inserting his penis inside her vagina, and, second, on
November 27, 2002, when he did same things to her at the same place under the
mango tree. She said that before that
happened the accused used to frequent her place, giving her peanuts and some
money (at pp. 2-7, TSN, April 20, 2004).
What they did on November 27, 2002, was
discovered when prosecution witness BBB, their 55-year old neighbor who claimed
on the stand to be their uncle and that the two of them were second cousins,
caught them in the act of sexual intercourse behind the unoccupied house of her
parents at that time under a mango tree, both fully naked. He had been watching them for three (3) days
before, suspicious that they were up to doing something bad. So when he saw them from his house by the
door outside, he approached them making the accused run off away as soon as he
saw him coming. Left behind in her
nakedness AAA admitted that she was doing the act with the accused. So, he covered her with her clothings and
walked her to her house and left her parents at the market where they were
vegetable vendors. As soon as told of
what he discovered, her parents went home with him and, together that afternoon
of the following day, they reported their complaint to the local police where AAA
and witness BBB gave their respective statements on the incident (Exhs. “C” and
“E”) (at pp. 2-6, TSN, September 29, 2005; pp. 2-13, TSN, October 13, 2005).
Version of the Defense
To
exculpate himself from liability, accused Castro offered both denial and alibi
as his defense. He denied raping the
private complainant. He averred that on
5 February 2002, between 5:00 in the afternoon to 12:00 in the morning, he was
attending a funeral wake of a neighbor.
During the alleged second rape, he contended that he was inside their
house having lunch with his sister.
After lunch at around 2:00 in the afternoon, he allegedly went to the
field to harvest palay.[9]
Ruling of the RTC
On
2 January 2007, the RTC rendered a decision acquitting Castro in Criminal Case
No. 771-M-2003 for failure of the prosecution to clearly establish that
accused, with the use of a bladed weapon, assaulted and had carnal knowledge of
AAA on 5 February 2002. The trial court,
however, found Castro guilty of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No.
772-M-2003. The dispositive portion of
the latter decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding herein accused
Gilbert Castro y Aguilar guilty as principal beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 772-M-2003, without any
circumstance, aggravating or mitigating, found attendant in its commission, he
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify victim AAA in the amount of
P50,000.00, plus another P50,000.00 as moral damages subject to
the corresponding filing fees as a first lien, and to pay the costs of the
proceedings.
xxx
Aggrieved,
Castro appealed to the CA,[10]
assigning the following error:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Accused-appellant
argued that the lower court failed to appreciate the fact that the testimony of
private complainant was full of contradictions.
The trial court allegedly gave credence to the inconsistent statements
made by AAA which when analyzed are highly illogical.
Accused
Castro averred that the inconsistent statements of AAA were made apparent
during the cross-examination. She
allegedly denied that the accused was courting her despite her previous
statement in court that she was being courted by accused-appellant. Accused also submitted that the failure of
AAA to offer any resistance when she was allegedly being sexually molested
belies the charge of rape.
Ruling of the CA
In
its decision dated 11 May 2009, the CA affirmed with modification the findings
of the RTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE,
the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated January 2, 2007 and its
subsequent Order dated March 2, 2007 finding accused-appellant Gilbert Castro
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the
damages awarded. Accordingly,
accused-appellant is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as
civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages.[11]
Hence,
this appeal.
In
a resolution dated 1 February 2010, the Court required the parties to
simultaneously file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty
(30) days from notice. In their
respective pleadings, both the appellee, represented by the Office of the
Solicitor General, and the appellant, represented by the Public Attorney’s
Office, manifested that they will no longer be filing any supplemental briefs
in support of their respective positions. The appellant merely repleaded and adopted all
the defenses and arguments raised in his Appellant’s Brief.
The
vital issue before this Court is whether the pieces of evidence adduced by the
prosecution is sufficient to convict Castro beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape committed against AAA. In
fine, assailed in this recourse are the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses
and the adequacy of its evidence.
This
Court has painstakingly perused over the records as well as the transcripts of
stenographic notes of this case and found no reason to reverse and set aside
the findings of the trial court and the CA.
We affirm Castro’s conviction.
Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that rape is committed:
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
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.
xxx
Clearly,
“sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age
of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape.”[12] 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.[13]
In
the case before us, the prosecution was able to establish through clinical and
testimonial evidence that AAA is a mental retardate. It presented and offered the psychological
report of Dr. Nimia de Guzman of the National Center for Mental Health stating
that AAA was suffering from moderate mental retardation (imbecile) with an IQ
of 43 and a mental age equivalent to that of a five and a half year old child.[14] Likewise, the testimonies of XYZ[15]
and the psychologist[16]
confirmed the victim’s mental retardation.
The
aforesaid facts support the allegation in the information that AAA is a mental
retardate. It was even noted by the
appellate court that the defense admitted the fact that the victim is suffering
from mental retardation, as stated in the accused-appellant’s Kontra Salaysay.[17]
The
prosecution has likewise established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant
had carnal knowledge of AAA. We have
thoroughly examined the testimony of AAA and found no reason to cast doubt on
her categorical and positive declarations of the sexual assault committed
against her. Her narration of the
sexual act was straightforward and categorical.
We quote the pertinent portion of her testimony:
Direct
examination by Fiscal Geronimo
Q: Do you recall when was the first time
that he raped you?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Tell
us.
A: Long
time ago, sir.
Q: And
immediately prior to that incident when you said he raped you,
tell us what did Castro do?
xxx
A: He
laid me down on a banana leaves (sic) on the ground under a mango
tree, sir.
xxx
Q: Do
you recall when was the second time that you said Castro raped you?
A: I
do not know, sir.
Q: When
Castro raped you the second time around, before that rape took place, what
did Castro do to you?
A: I
was stripped of my clothes, sir. (Hinubuan)
Q: And
where was that? What place was that?
A: The
same place, Your Honor.
Q: And
after Castro stripped of your clothes, what did Castro do?
A: Hinipuan
po.
Q: What
part of your body was touched by Castro?
A: On my breast and my private organ, sir.
Q: After
that, what did Castro do?
A: He
laid down, sir.
Q: At
that time were you also laying down?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: That
is also under the mango tree?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: When
Castro laid down, what did Castro do?
A: He
came on top of me, sir.
Q: Was
Castro at that time without clothes?
A: He
was wearing his short, sir.
Q: Was
that short removed from his body when he went on top of
you?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: When
he came on top of you, what did you feel?
A: I
feel pain, sir.
Court: Are you saying he again inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A: Yes,
Your Honor.
Fiscal: After that, what did you do?
A: I
was the one who is being pushed, sir.
Q: Would
you please show us the manner by which you were
pushed by Castro?
A: His
body is being press (sic) over my body, sir.
Q: When
you felt pain, after that, what transpired?
A: He
left me, sir.
Q: What
about you, what did you do?
A: I
went home, sir.
Q: After
that you said, was that after two days you reported the two incidents to your
mother?
A: Two
days after I was raped, the second time, I reported the
matter to my mother and
to the police, sir.[18]
Appellant’s
contention which essentially assails the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses’ testimony is untenable. It was observed that on the witness stand AAA
remained steadfast and never wavered in her testimony. She maintained even on cross-examination that
it was appellant who defiled her. The
inconsistencies raised by appellant are insignificant matters which are not
material ingredients of the crime of rape.
We maintain that inconsistencies on minor details do not lessen a
victim’s credibility; are common and may be expected from an uncoached witness.[19]
On
the other hand, We give scant consideration on the defenses proffered by
appellant. This Court has consistently
ruled that bare denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses because these are
self-serving and easy to fabricate. For
not being substantiated by sufficient evidence, appellant’s defenses failed to
overcome or undermine the positive and categorical declarations of AAA. Notably, appellant contended that on 27
November 2002 at 12 in the afternoon, he was having lunch with his sister. He, however, failed to present his sister to
testify on the truthfulness of his allegation.
Moreover, the incident in question occurred in a place which was just a
few meters from his house. Thus, it was
not impossible for him to be at the crime scene during the period alleged by
the prosecution witnesses.
We
must reiterate that, ultimately, when the issue is one of credibility of
witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial
court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value
that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial court is in a
better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed
their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[20]
This
Court likewise affirms the CA’s ruling on the penalty to be imposed on
appellant Castro.
Article
266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by The Anti-Rape Law of 1997
provides:
xxx
The death penalty shall also be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
xxx
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.
The
information in this case alleges that AAA is a mental retardate and such fact
was known to the appellant at the time of the commission of the crime. These allegations were duly established by
the prosecution during trial. The trial
court which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the
witnesses during the trial ratiocinated the conviction of the accused with the
following statement:
The
Court is convinced that indeed herein accused on 27 November 2002, had carnal
knowledge of AAA, an 18-year-old woman with a weak mind that her mental age was
only that of a five and a half (5 ½) year old child. Her abnormality as a
retardate was known to their neighborhood, including the accused, an immediate
neighbor. His obstinate denial of ever talking to her and her family is,
therefore, a lie.[21]
We
affirm the trial and appellate court’s findings that it was highly improbable
for Castro not to have known that AAA was a mental retardate considering that
they were cousins and their residences were just two meters apart. The cause of the prosecution was further
strengthened by the testimony of XYZ, the uncle of AAA and appellant. Unlike other rape cases where the Court’s
evaluation is limited to the testimony of the victim and the accused, the
instant case had a witness who testified that he personally saw the commission
of the crime. Thus, the imposition of
the death penalty would have been proper.
With
the enactment of R.A. 9346[22]
on 24 June 2006, however, the imposition of death penalty has been prohibited. Pursuant
to Section 2 thereof, the property penalty to be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua. RA 9346 should be applied even if the crime was committed
prior to the enactment of the law in view of the principle in criminal law that
favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa
restrigenda. Penal laws which are
favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[23]
In
addition, appellant shall not be eligible for parole. Under Section 3 of RA 9346, “persons
convicted with reclusion perpetua, or
those whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act
No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.”
We
likewise affirm the CA’s ruling with regard to the amount of civil indemnity
and moral damages awarded. We sustain
the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity despite the reduction of the
penalty imposed on appellant from death to reclusion
perpetua. As explained by this
Court in People v. Victor,[24] the said award
does not depend upon the imposition of the death penalty; rather, it is awarded
based on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of
the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.[25]
We
also find proper the CA’s ruling increasing the award of moral damages from P50,000.00
to P75,000.00. Moral damages are
awarded without need of proof for mental, physical and psychological suffering
undeniably sustained by a rape victim because it is assumed that a rape victim
has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.[26]
We, however, increase the amount of
exemplary damages awarded from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line
with prevailing jurisprudence[27]
on the matter. The Court, in the case of
People v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr.,[28]
awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to
elders
who abuse and corrupt the youth, and
to protect the latter from sexual abuse.
WHEREFORE, the 11 May 2009 decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02733 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
Appellant Gilbert A. Castro is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape
committed against AAA for which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility
for parole. He is further ordered to pay
AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as
civil indemnity ex delicto; P75,000.00
as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice |
|||||
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C.
CORONA
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|||||
|
|
||||
[1] CA rollo, pp. 117-118.
[2] Particularly
docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02733, penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with Associate Justices
Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, concurring; id. at 104-116.
[3] CA
rollo, pp. 35-40.
[4] G.R.
No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[5] TSN,
22 June 2006, p. 6.
[6] TSN, 23 March 2006, p. 4.
[7] Records, pp. 1 and 4.
[8] CA
rollo, pp. 89-91.
[9] CA rollo, pp. 68-69.
[10] Id.
[11] CA
rollo, pp. 115-116.
[12] People v. Andaya, G. R. No. 126545, 21 April 1999, 306 SCRA 202, 216.
[13] People v. Dela Paz, G. R. No. 177294, 19
February 2008, 546 SCRA 363, 376.
[14] Records,
pp. 119-120, Exhibit “D” for the prosecution.
[15] TSN,
26 June 2003, pp. 3-4.
[16] TSN, 14 April 2005, pp. 55-74.
[17] Records,
p. 148, Exhibit “1”.
[18] TSN,
20 April 2004, pp. 28, 31-33.
[19] People v. Barcelona, G.R. No. 82589, 31
October 1990, 191 SCRA 100, 107.
[20] People v. Laceste, G.R. No. 127127, 30
July 1998, 293 SCRA 397, 407.
[21] RTC
Decision, CA rollo, pp. 38-39.
[22] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines.
[23] People v. Canuto, G.R. No. 166544, 27
July 2007, 528 SCRA 366, 377.
[24] 354
Phil 195, 209 (1998).
[25] People v. Ortoa, G.R. No. 176266, 8
August 2007, 529 SCRA 555-556.
[26] People v. Calongui, G. R. No. 170566, 3
March 2006, 484 SCRA 76, 88.
[27] People v. Rante, G.R. No. 184809, 29
March 2010; People v. Dalisay, G. R.
No. 188106, 15 November
2009; People v. Peralta, G. R. No. 187531, 16 October 2009.
[28] G. R. No. 182191, 8 May 2009, 587 SCRA 803, 808.