@ Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE, G.R.No. 225729 PHILIPPINES, PlaintffsAppelles, Present: = versus = PERLAS-BERNABE, J, Chairperson, REYES, AJR, VALENTINO CATIG y HERNANDO, GENTERONI, INTING, and ‘Accused-Appellant. DELOS SANTOS, J Promulented: “11 WAG DECISION HERNANDO, J: ‘On appeal isthe July 16,2015 Decision! ofthe Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06824 which affirmed with modifications the April 8,2014 Decision® of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73 of Olongapo City, in Criminal Case No. 130-2008 finding appellant Valentino Catie » "Rot. 223 Pedy seca ce Cel Lv Leng and ena Ase ies Nin Anti Vslosc Mr OS, Ara pp #8; pmey Mesd s Nrm Pain,Decision 2 GR No.225729 Genteroni (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt ofthe crime of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reelusion perpetua, ‘The Antecedent Facts ‘The Information* dated July 24, 2008 charging appellant with Rape reads ‘That on of about the 23% day of July 2008, a about 9:30 in the ‘moming, x x x Province of Zambales, Philippines and within. the {action ofthis Honorable Court, the sid accused, wi lewd desan, id then and there wilfully, unilly and fsoniosly have sexta intercourse with and carnal knowledge often (5) year old minge AAA! [ho is also] mentally retard, tothe damages prejudice of sd AAA CONTRARY TO LAW! Appellant pleaded “not guilty” Trial onthe meits thereafter ensued Version of the Prosecution ‘The prosecution presented the following as witnesses: (a) AAA; (b) BBB, AAA's sister; (c) Dr, Earl Yap (Dr. Yap), the Municipal Health Officer who examined AAA; and, (2) Fatima Ladringan (Ladringan), a Social Worker Officer at the Municipal Social Wella and Development Office (MSWDO) of x xx, Zambales. ‘The fact as established by the prosecution areas follows: (On July 23, 2008, st sround 9:30 in the morning, BBB asked AAA to fetch water from appellant’s house. AAA complied. Upon artiving. at appellant's house, the latter instructed her to go inside, Once inside, he laid heron the bed, took off her shorts and panty, touched her vagina, and raped ner. After he was done with his bestal act, appellant gave AAA money and sugarcane. AAA then went home, When she arrived at their house, BBB noticed that AAA’s shorts were ‘wom backwards with bloodstains on it, When BBB asked AAA what Sis i casa aDecision happened, AAA suddenly cried and told BBB that she was raped by ‘appellant, She further narrated that appellant gave her money and sugar After hearing the horrid story, BBB and AAA immediately sought ‘assistance from barangay authorities and the MSWDO. AAA was brousht to the Municipal Health Center fora physical examination. Dr. Yap physically found hymenal bleeding and laceration indicative ofa recent penetration of the vietim’s vaginal canal, Subsequently, BBB and AAA went tothe police {report the incident Version of the Defense Appellant denied raping AAA. He alleged that on the day of the incident, he went home in the moming after plying his tricycle all night. ‘While sleeping in the sala, he heard someone calling him. When he stood up, hhe saw AAA who was looking for his daughter but his daughter was not around. AAA then asked for sugarcane from appellant. During thelr ‘conversation, appellant noticed bloodstains on AAA's hand and short. When asked about it, AAA simply ignored him, AAA then went to the water pump ‘Outside their house where she found two one-peso coins left by his daughter ‘AAA gotthe coins and went tothe direction ofthe suzareane field. Appellant thereafter closed the door of their house and went back to sleep ‘At ground 3 o'clock in the afemoon, three policemen went to their house informing him that comeone is accusing Int of rape. Appellant Voluntarily went with the police. It was only then that he leamed that AAA was his accuser, Appellant claimed that he was being accused of the erime because he refused to lend BBB his bicycle and to give her his dog which she previously asked from him, Ruling ofthe Regionat Trial Court In its April 8, 2014 Decision,’ the RTC, Branch 73 of Olongape City, found appellant guilty as charged. It gave eredence to AAA's testimony on hhow she was allegedly raped by appellant. The RTC observed that despite the victim's meotal handicap, she properly conveyed her ideas and intelligently answered the questions propounded to her during the wal. Her testimony ‘hich was corroborated by the results ofher medical examination was given ‘reater probative weight than appellant's defense of denial ‘The flo of the RTC Decision reads in this wise:Desison 4 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby renderod, finding accused Valentino Caig_y Gentroi GUILTY beyont reanable doubt of the tvime of Rape ner At. 266-A, paragraph I) of the Revised Petal Code in cltion o Republic Act No. 7610 ad is sertenced to sue the pensly of Reclsion Perpetua. He is also ordered t py the private compat 50.000. os civ ern and P3000 00 as ral drag SO ORDERED, Ruling ofthe Court of Appeals ‘The CA, in its July 16, 2015 Decision, affirmed the findings of the ‘tial court but found appellant criminally liable of the crime of Simple Rape under Article 266-A, par, I(b), and not under Article 266-A, par. (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The CA reasoned that Article 266-A, par. 1(d) refers to a person who is suffering from dementia which is a condition of deteriorated mentality characterized by marked decline in the individual's imellectual level and often emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. Oa the ‘other hand, the phrase “deprived of reason” under Article 266-4, pat. 1(b), hhas been interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation, ‘AAA, as ruled by the appellate court, is mentally deficient, Thus, she should be considered a person “deprived of reason” which falls under Article 266-4, par 1(h), and not one wh is “demented ‘The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads WHEREFORE: premise considered the aca is DENIED. The Desision dtd 08 April 2014 ofthe Regina Til Cour of Olongapo Cy Branch 73 in Crim. Case No 130-2008 Finding acewsel-appelan Valentino Catia» Genteroniguity beyond reasonable doubt of he exime of rape, sentencing him to sie the penalty of relaion porta, ‘ering him op pate complainant 0.00000 as iil fmt sd 150,000.00 os moral damages. i AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that aeeused-appellnt (6) four guilty of simple rape under Article 266-4 (1) ofthe Revised Penal Code as send, (©) not eligibl fo pa (6) farther onderst to pay private complainant AAA 30,000.00 as exemplary dniges ae (@ ordered to py interest atthe ate of 6% parma on the aan ‘ofciviindernity. moral damages. nd exemplary damages rom Snality of is judgment unt aly pd SO ORDERED."Decision 5 GR. No. 225729 ence, the instant appeal Both parties did not file supplemental briefs as they had already ‘exhaustively argued their issues in their respective briefs filed before the can ‘The sole issue in this ease is whether the prosecution sufficiently ‘stablished appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged ‘The Court’s Rating ‘The Court finds the appeal beret of merit ‘The elements athe crime of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC are 4s follows: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the vietim; and (2) the said act was accomplished (a) through the use of foree or intimidation, er (b) ‘when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or fe) when the vitim is under 12 years of age oris demented. In this case, appellant avers thatthe prosecution failed to duly prove how the alleged rape was committed. AAA merely made a general reference fo rape during her testimony, She uid not mention that appellant's penis penetrated her vagina. Neither did she state in her testimony if appellant kissed or touched her. Further, appellant insists that the presence of laceration of general reference to rape which was repeatedly stated by AAA does not Prove defloration whieh can be caused by several factors other than sexual abuse, ‘The Cour disagrees. The arguments presented by appellant attack the credibility of AAA as ‘a witness. The tral court has the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the wwtness o as to determine if there i indeed truth to his or her testimony inthe witness stand." Hence, the Coutt gives high respect to is evaluation ‘of te testimony of a witness. ‘The rationale on why it i the duty of the trial court to determine a witness” credibility was elucidated by the Court in People v. Aba." citing People v. Banzuelo," in this wise: sro 8, 58200,Desison ‘ OR No. 225729 cis wel seed that the evlintion ofthe credibility of witnesses and {hei testimoies is mater best undertaken bythe rl cout because Of fits eique opportunity to ebserve the witnesses fsthand and tone thir demeanor, conduct and atitude under gsiling examination, "Tess are important in determining the ruthless of witnesses and in nesting ‘he rth, especialy in the face of ening testimonies, Force he phasis gesture and infection ofthe voice re potent asin accra ‘he witness rei andthe ua out Ras the opps cen take 'sivantage ofthese ads. These canna be inerporated inte rears st all that the appellate cour can se are the Gold words ef the ites contained in ransript of testimonies with the risk ha some of wha the ‘witnes actully ssid may have bees losin the proces of treseihing. As jomety stated by an American cour, "bere [san inherent impos of determining with any deure of accuacy wat rei i justy de to 8 Witness fom merely reading the words spoken By him, even if there wee 0 dou sto the entity ofthe Words. However nfl a cara wines ‘may te, there is generally, under the prestte of a sill crm ‘amination, someting in his manne or bening onthe tnd that hry him, and thereby destroys the Force of his testing. Many the real ea ‘of th by whic the aul witness exposed in the very nate oF Ihags cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence they ean never be onsdered by the appellate cour, ‘The Court is therefore generally bound by the findings of the trial ‘cour, especially when affirmed by the appellate cour, in the absenee of any ‘misapprehension of facts that would warrant the reversal of the lower court's decision." ‘We see no reason to depart from the tral court's finding that AAA is a credible witness. She narrated in a clear, categorical and straightforward ‘manner how she was subjected to the besial act by appellant. She likewise identified appellant with certainty as her perpetrator before the court, We ‘quote the pertinent portions of her testimony, to wit" ©: Do,you remember anything bad done to you when you wet 1 the howe ‘cat? A: Vermadan, (Whats that happened? Do you know what it? Di he do angthing to you? AcT a ape here @ hats the meaning to you now, yu ean imitate aio or ll ws? pot aya ak." 0: Were you wearing anything when he di that 10 you"iniyot ka niga"? A: Yes, was wearing my elthes mada, ‘Q:When he dd that o you did you see his penis? A: Yer mada. “S188 Ap Di gp 4. : ~Decision 7 GR No. 225729 ¢ Did be kiss you, do you ember? AINo, (@:Do,00 remember when he committal iyot"to you where wereyou? Were you inside the hows rouse the hose? ‘Ac Inside the hoa, Whos: house wa i ifyou know? A: Is the house af Cag ow igh. Why were you there aha tne atthe house of Cag? A: ete water mada Who told you we fetch water? ‘AT as ase by my sister oF water dam, 0; Were you able to ech water? A Yesmadin ©: What happened frst? You got the water of Cate commited “iyo” upon 2 He raped me, After raped you and you gt the wer, dhe sy, do or ive anything? A There was And hat wa his? ATi and pos. Do you know why he gave you tbo and peso? A Healso gave me fish, (Q:So20., wherein his case, because this just outside, where did he comic ‘got upon you inside o ule or where? A: Orsi. : You didnot go inside the house anymore? You only stayed hee cutis? AcHleraped meiiside, (0:80, you wer able to go ists, A: Yes nhs ae, So nis house oust a bed? A: Ves manDecision 5 GR.No. 225729 (It was thereat th bd hit ie commited iyt upon you? AA: Yes and he mad me i down, (Were you crying at that ine when was making yet upon you? Ac Yes madam, (0: Dit hr or not? Maki bt? AYes, Where, what part of your body were you hur? COURT INTERPRETER ‘Witness pointing to her vagina FISCAL BAYONA twas punful because of your menstruation or because of what he was doing? acYer Do you remember ite touched you in any part of your by? A Yes madam, (At what art do you emember or parts of your body did he touch you [aaa AMY vagina Did remove yo lets any parting that me? A: Hetok off my pant. Mach leeway should be given to AAA’s testimony considering her age ‘and mental capacity. Thus, although AAA did not deseribe the incident of ‘ape in more detail, itis apparent from her testimony that appellant was successful in having earnal knowledge of her. To stress, We eannot expect AAA to provide a detailed account of what transpired because of her mental handicap. In any esse, her simple narration was indicative of her honesty and innocence." Interestingly, AAA attested without any inkling of hesitation that she felt pain in her vagina when she was being raped by appellant." “Moreover, in cases where penetration was not fully established, the Court had consistently enunciated that rape was nevertheless consummated on the vietim’s testimony that she felt pain. The pain could be nothing but the result of penile penetration, suicient to constitute rape." ‘The presence of a hymenal lacerstion at 3 o'clock position due to Penetration further strengthens AAA"s testimony that she was raped. Ie is Worthy to note thatthe results of AAA's physical examination which was conducted on the very same day that the rape incident happened "Pane ain 386 Po, a 20, ‘pst Fe Ps, ToDecision ® GR.No. 225720 ‘corroborates her testimony that she was sexually molested by the appellant.” Dr. Yap even categorically stated that AAA's vagina was still bleeding when she was brought to him for personal examination, thus proving that the act of rape was consummated, (On the other hand, the defense miserably failed to impeach AAAs credibility during cross-examination, [indeed AAA fabricated her story, it Would have heen easy for the defense to destroy her credibility, “Tor the ability to sustain such fietion would require a quick and insidious mind, and her mental condition certainly precluded such possibility" We therefore sustain AAA’s competency and give full weight and credence to her testimony. Her credibility as a witness coupled with hee Positive identification that it was appellant wito raped her has greater wight ‘than appellant's mere defenses of denial and alibi, In fact, the Court frowns upon these, weak defenses as these are easily fabricated and highly ‘unreliable? Moreover, appellant failed to present evidence showing that AAA and her famity harbored any ill motive to falsely accuse him of a heinous crime, Her testimony is therefore more believable in the absence any reason of improper motive on why she would falsely implicate him of commiting a heinous erime.”” ‘Stuies show that den paieulary very young chien, make “perfect viens” of rape. Ceranly children have more problems. proving 'scconts of events because thy donot understand everything they expeiene, Moreover, eden have very lined vocabulary Alo ANA was 3 year ol, she ath men cot ofa 3-year ei. The lower courts and this Court as wll could thetefore pot eapeet AAA, 'o rate and deserve the ext deal a how she Was apd wa "year ol eit ould do Mental retardation and its various levels are extensively diseussed in People v. Dalandas,® viz Mental trton i chronic coniton preset from bi or cly ‘hilo and characterized by impaired inlet funetionng measred by standardized tes It manifests in imped aapation fo he Sly ‘ean ofthe individuals own sca envionment Commun, met retardate exhibits slow rat of maturation, physic anor poycholoicl 1s well asim leans cep Although "mens retardation” is ofen wed interchangeably ith ‘ment deficiency” he Tater term is uss reserved for Tose without © Pepe Un 390 7S BON. Peo in spen Pople an OP a 4.2009, "Br Cap GR N24. ember 67 ing Poe: eve 36 i 47.8 8,Decision 0 GR.No. 225729 "scognizabl bran pathology. The degrees of metal rtanation according ‘o ei eve of intelectual funtion ae laste, tus “Mental Retardation Leven DESCRIPTION TERM INTELLIGENCE QuorieNr QRANGE) L Profound Below 20 0 Severe 238 mu Moderate 3652 wv Mia sus ‘A normal mind is one whick in steagth and capaci rinks reasonably well wih the average ofthe great dy of men nd wore hs ‘makeup orsnized human society in general a rc by common coat ‘ecognized as sane and competent perform the ordinary tie and sssume the oninary responses ie The mental retardtion of parsons a the degrees thereof may be manifested by thet vert acts ppearuace,attde and behavior. The enition, manaer of walking, abit to Tee once or tend to personal hygiene. "capacity 10 develop existance or immuno. infection, dependency’ on others for petetion and care and ably aeons imeligible speech maybe indica ofthe degre of mena tarda of 2 reron. Those suring fins severe mea Tate ae ly tnd an exhibit same fm of facial ot body foi) sh 8 Imongolism, or gargolism. The size and shape othe beads nico of !niropbaly. The profoundly retarded may be unable to dest imac or ‘wash orate to howel and Me reins otha his appearance may ‘be very unclean and untidy unless he eee eat del oF nutiag ca ‘There may he marked disturbance of git and involuntary vere ‘Amps to converse with a menial retards may be line tot es 'unintligie sounds iter sontaneous ar in esponse steps that ne macy the examiner io converse a my be lint oa few spl words ‘orphrass. llth foregoing may be testified on by einry witness aha ‘ome in contact witha alleged metal retadate>* tis not required fora rape victim to undergo a comprehensive medical examination so a8 to prove that helshe is a mental retardate. We have Fepeatedly pronounced that mental retardation can be proven by evidence ‘other than medieal/tinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and «even the observation by the trial court2" However, the convietion of an aceused of rape based on the mental retardation of the victim must be anchored on proof beyond reasonable doubt ofthe same 2" fe yon Pe 040 teDesision " GR No. 225729 ‘There is no doubt that AAA is a mental retardate. Ladringan, the social worker who conducted the ease study.” testified that AAA sulfered from typhoid fever for almost a month when she was three years old. She hed sonvulsion episode and was confined a the hospital for treatment. Due to het Severe illness, AAAs mental development was affected. AAA is likewise illiterate, unable to read and write, and only resched Grade 1 level due to sificuly in comprehension. Notably, appellant even admitted that he knew of AAA's mental state® Dr. Yap also declared that AAA’s physical built clearly manifested that she is indeed mentally retardat.”” Further, the trial court judge duly observed she was suffering from mental impaiement based on her demeanor and ‘manner of answering the questions propounded to her daring her examination while in the witness stand. Such observation was even reflected in April 8, 2014 Decision of the RTC However, although it was proven and admitted during ral that appellant knew of AAA's mental retardation, the same cannot be appreciated as 2 {qualifying circumstance for it was not specifically alleged in the Information that he was aware of AA’s mental retardation,” All told, the Court finds that che appellate court correctly found that appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt ofthe erime of Simple Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b) ofthe RPC, as amended by Republic Act (R-A.) No. 8383, ‘The appellate court also comectly mated the penalty of roclurion Perpetua on appellant pursuant to Article 266-B ofthe RPC. Nonetheless, in light with the recent jurisprudence, the Court deems it Wise to increase the awards of moral damages, civil indemnity. and exemplary damages to #75,000.00 each. Finally, the CA correctly imposed interest on the damages awarded atthe rate of 6% pet annum from the date of this judgment unti its ful satisfaction.” WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No, 06824 finding appellant Valentino Catig_» Genteroni guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the erime of Simple Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of rechosion perpetua is AFFRIMED with MODIFICATION and that the appellant is ordered to Pay AAA: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) 75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, Reade. 561 Nie Ape 1201395 3 Se Pao any 10 Pi. 93,985 (2017) “Pot 3 Pi 9 C0), Paps Soe 34a 2, 747 2012 No Galerie» Fp 70 Pi, 2013, Hin sory alloy Pome ander Fp Bay 6 Pa 36 oe (209) ling SPDecision b GR. No. 225720 SO ORDERED, ”AULL. HERNANDO. ‘Associate Justice WE CONCUR: AY, Waly ESTELA M, FERLAS-BERNABE, Senior Associate Justice Chairperson = avonefifeves se esi OMGE rs EDGARDO L. DELOS SANTOS Associate lusticeDesison b GR No. 225720 ATTESTATION {attest thatthe conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in ‘consultation before the ease was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Cour’'s Division Senior Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the eonehisions inthe above Decision haa heen reached in consultation before the ease was wine td the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division DIospAno. hier PERALTA