Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - ARTURO PALER, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186411 Present: VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: July
5, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the April 30,
2008 Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02647 entitled People of the
Philippines v. Arturo L. Paler which affirmed the November 22, 2006
Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando
City, La Union, Branch 13, in Criminal Cases Nos. 5474 and 5475. The trial court held accused-appellant
Arturo Paler guilty of two counts of rape.
The Facts
AAA[3] is
a mentally retarded young girl, whose mental condition is akin to that of a
five years old child. On October 6,
2000, after attending classes at the La Union National High School, AAA, then
14 years old, headed for home at the eastern portion of the cemetery in
Lingsat,
On October 20, 2000, the same
incident happened again. After attending
classes, AAA rode a jeepney and got off the cemetery. While walking towards their home, AAA was
suddenly pulled by Arturo near the Chinese pagoda. Arturo then removed AAA’s uniform and
underwear. Thereafter, he had sexual
intercourse with her. When Arturo was done with his assault, AAA went home.[5]
Afraid that her mother might get mad
at her, AAA chose to reveal to her auntie what had happened to her. Her auntie helped her in filing the
case. They reported the matter to the
barangay captain and then AAA was brought to the City Health Office for a
medical examination. AAA underwent three
medical examinations. The first two were
conducted by Dr. Minda Amor Martinez while the third was conducted by Dr.
Melina L. Mayames. Dr. Mayames’ findings show, among others, that AAA’s
external genitalia had an “incomplete fresh laceration at the 9 o’clock
position.”[6]
Also, AAA underwent a psychological
examination. Janet Calado, a
psychologist and Chapter Executive Manager of the Philippine Mental Health
Association, Inc., reported that AAA’s mental condition is classified as
severely retarded. She noted that AAA’s
IQ is equivalent to that of a five year-old child and she needs to be under
continued counseling to help her develop the skills needed to enable her to
perform her daily living as a normal person.[7]
Thereafter, on January 23, 2000, two
Informations for rape, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 5474 and 5475, were
filed against Arturo Paler. Except for
the date when the crime allegedly took place, the allegations in the
Informations were the same, thus:
That on or about the 6th
day of October, 2000, in the City of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
lewd design and by using force and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the aforenamed
14 year-old [AAA] against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.[8]
(Emphasis supplied.)
During trial, accused-appellant
Arturo denied the charges against him.
He claimed that around 2:00 p.m. of October 6, 2000, upon Federico
Espiritu Jr.’s request, he fetched the latter’s daughter from school and
brought her to her home in Ili Norte, San Juan, La Union. He then waited for Federico to arrive at
around 6:00 p.m. and thereafter they bought gin and had a drinking spree. He
spent the night at Espiritu’s house and left for Lingsat only on the next
morning.[9]
He also averred that on October 20,
2000, he worked in the cemetery from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., taking only a one
hour break at noon. After working, he
returned to the house where he was staying.
He was then asked by Noli Valdriz to look after his daughter until 6:00
p.m. Thereafter, Valdriz brought out a
bottle of gin and they had a drinking spree until 10:00 p.m. They went to sleep afterwards.[10]
Federico Espiritu Jr. and Noli
Valdriz corroborated Arturo’s statements.
On November 22, 2006, the RTC
rendered a Decision, the dispositive part of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused ARTURO PALER guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape and sentences him to reclusion perpetua for each count and orders him to pay the complainant [Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP50,000.00)] as civil indemnity and [Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP50,000.00)] as moral damages. With Costs.
SO ORDERED.[11]
The case
was appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Despite
AAA’s mental capacity, the CA upheld her credibility. It noted AAA’s firm
declaration that accused-appellant Arturo raped her and how she remained
consistent with this statement even under grueling cross-examination.
Also, the
appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Arturo had forced
carnal knowledge of AAA. It noted that
AAA’s weak mental condition made it impossible for her to resist the attacks of
Arturo. The CA emphasized that the force
employed in rape does not need to be of such character as could not be
resisted; instead, it must only be sufficient to consummate the purpose which
the accused had in mind.[12]
Hence, we
have this appeal.
The Issues
In a
Resolution dated March 30, 2009, this Court required the parties to submit
supplemental briefs if they so desired.
On June 10, 2009, accused-appellant, through counsel, signified that he
is not going to file a supplemental brief anymore. The issue raised in accused-appellant’s Brief
dated August 1, 2007 is now deemed adopted in this present appeal, thus:
The trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged despite failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[13]
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit.
Appellant Arturo faults the CA for
admitting evidence and basing its decision on AAA’s mental retardation when
such fact was not alleged in the Informations.
He claims that AAA’s mental retardation is an essential fact that should
have been specifically alleged. He
further asserts that AAA’s weak mental state did not contribute to her credibility
as a witness but instead showed that her statements in court were results of a
systematic training and rehearsal. He
insists that AAA’s mother only coached her to implicate him in the crimes.
We are not convinced.
Article 266-A (1) of the Revised
Penal Code provides that rape against a woman may be committed under any of the
following circumstances:
Article 266-A. Rape:
When And How Committed.
Rape is Committed -
1.
By a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following:
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
In this
provision, carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape.[14]
A mental condition of
retardation deprives the complainant of that natural instinct to resist a
bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood.[15] For this reason, sexual intercourse with one
who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is incapable of giving
consent to the carnal act already constitutes rape; without requiring proof
that the accused used force or intimidation in committing the act.[16] In this circumstance, what
needs to be alleged in the information and proven during trial are the facts of
appellant’s carnal knowledge of the victim, and the victim’s mental
retardation.
However, such is not the situation here. In the case at bar, appellant was charged with rape through force and intimidation. For conviction to lie, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove two elements––that appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim and that such act was done through force or intimidation. Clearly, contrary to appellant’s claims, an allegation in the Information of the victim’s mental retardation was not necessary.
Appellant attacks the victim’s capacity to testify based on her weak mental condition. However, as correctly held by the appellate court, mental retardation, by itself, does not disqualify a person from testifying. What is essential is the quality of perception, and the manner in which this perception is made known to the court.[17] In this case, records show that despite the victim’s mental retardation, she testified in a straightforward and categorical manner that appellant had raped her. The defense could not even shake her resolve to implicate appellant in the crime. On the contrary, her statements during cross-examination even support her position. There is thus, no reason to overturn the finding of credibility by the trial and appellate courts.
As to the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, we find appellant’s conviction to be in order.
Appellant’s carnal knowledge of the victim was established by her categorical narration of the incident. The victim clearly recounted how appellant pulled her in a secluded portion of the cemetery, removed her clothes, and had sexual intercourse with her.[18] Aware that appellant had committed an act she describes as “niyotnak” and “eyot”, she said that she felt pain after the incident. Her testimony is supported by the medico-legal findings of lacerations on her hymen.[19] Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[20] Moreover, when the victim’s straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[21]
Likewise established is the attendant circumstance of force. Force or intimidation necessary in rape is relative, for it largely depends on the circumstances of the rape as well as the size, age, strength and relation of the parties.[22] In this case, the CA properly determined that appellant used force against the victim, thus:
Contrary to the suppositions
of accused-appellant, records bear out that he indeed used force and
intimidation on private complainant. It
should be remembered that private complainant was pulled by accused-appellant
towards the Chinese pagoda to satisfy his lust.
Considering her weak mental state, her abduction in the cemetery cowered her into
submission. While the intimidation on
her could not hold true for others who are of normal events, she categorically
testified that when she was pulled by accused-appellant, she thought that he
would kill her. In her testimony, she
consistently repeated that she was scared and afraid. Evidently, her mental condition was such that
she would not resist sexual advances because she was so deprived of reason to
make any effective resistance. Hence, by
being so deprived, the act is made possible in the same way when there is
active resistance but the same is overcome by force or threat, which is the
essence of rape.[23]
As regards
the award of damages, we find that exemplary damages of PhP 30,000 is warranted
following recent jurisprudence.[24] The award of exemplary damages is granted
when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance;[25]
or as in this case, as a public example, in order to protect hapless
individuals from molestation.[26]
WHEREFORE, the
Court AFFIRMS the April 30, 2008
Decision Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02647 with MODIFICATION. As modified, the dispositive portion of the
affirmed November 22, 2006 Decision of
the RTC Decision shall read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused ARTURO PALER guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape and sentences him to reclusion perpetua for each count. Likewise, accused is ordered to pay the complainant, for each count of rape, PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity and PhP50,000.00 as moral damages and PhP30,000 as exemplary damages. With Costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, 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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Normandie B. Pizarro.
[3] Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with that of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her in order to protect her privacy.
[4] Rollo, p. 4.
[5]
[6]
[7] Rollo, pp. 6-7.
[8] CA rollo, pp. 5-6.
[9] Rollo, p. 8.
[10]
[11] CA rollo, p. 16.
[12] Rollo, p. 15.
[13]
[14] People v. Magabo, G.R. No. 139471, January 23, 2001, 350 SCRA 126, 131.
[15] People v. Andaya, G.R. No. 126545, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 202, 215.
[16]
[17] People v. Macapal, Jr., G.R. No. 155335, July 14, 2005, 463 SCRA 387, 400.
[18] TSN, September 11, 2003, pp. 5-8; September 23, 2003, pp. 2-3.
[19] Supra note 6.
[20] People v. Cabudbod, G.R. No. 176348, April 16, 2009.
[21] People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 173471, March 17, 2009; People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 168101, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 435, 448; People v. Bañares, G.R. No. 127491, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 435, 448.
[22] People v. Murillo, G.R. Nos. 128851-56, February 19, 2001, 352 SCRA 105, 118.
[23] Rollo, pp. 14-15.
[24] People v. Ofemiano, G.R. No. 187155, February 1, 2010.