X

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

PUBUC INFORMATION OFFICE

31.\epublic of tlJc 1~bihppine%

$,Upre1ne <!Court
,:iflflan ila
SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 224595

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CARPIO, Acting CJ.,

Chairperson,
- versus - CAGUIOA,
REYES, J., JR.,
LAZARO-JAVIER, and
ZALAMEDA, JJ.

Promulgat18 Sf:P 2019

GGG, d Appellant.
Accuse -
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____ - !!'\IC\"tc~~,<r~~
I.V\11----"1 0 - - - x

e RESOLUTION

CARPIO, Acting C.J.:

The Case

This is an appeal from the 27 January 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01221-MIN, which affirmed with
modification the Judgment2 dated 27 November 2012 of the Regional Trial
Court (trial court), Branch 6, Dipolog City, convicting accused-appellant
GGG 3 (appellant) of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC).

The Facts

The Information charging appellant of the crime of rape reads:

That on March 1, 2005 at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning at
XXX, Dapitan City, Philippines, and within the- jurisdiction of this

Rollo, pp. 3-28. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, with Associate Justices
Edgardo A. Camello and Perpetua T. Atal-Pafio concurring.
2
CA rollo, pp. 26-42. Penned by Pairing Judge Rogelio D. Laquihon.
In accordance with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, the identities of the parties,
records and court proceedings are kept confidential by replacing their names and other personal
circumstances with fictitious initials, and by blotting out the specific geographical location that
may disclose the identities of the victims.

v--
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 224595

Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design and by

mean~ of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, without her
consent and against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating circumstance of

accused's knowledge that the victim is mentally retarded. 4

The prosecution presented five witnesses: (1) BBB, the mother of

AAA; (2) CCC, the brother of AAA; (3) SPO4 Ronnie Quizo, the arresting
officer; (4) Dr. Rolito Cataluna; and (5) Dr. Zita Adaza.

CCC, the 14-year-old brother of AAA, testified that on 28 February

2005, a party was held at their house in Dapitan City for the birthday of his
brother EEE's daughter. Among those who attended the party was appellant.
After dinner, he and his sister AAA slept in one of the bedrooms, which was
visible from the sala where EEE and his guests, including appellant were
still drinking Tanduay Rhum. The following morning, at 5:00 a.m., on
1 March 2005, CCC was awakened when he felt the floor shake. CCC saw a
man on top of AAA having sexual intercourse with her. AAA was gasping
for breath and moaning in pain. When CCC switched on the light in the
room, he saw appellant, who was only wearing a big t-shirt but no pants,
about to leave the room. Appellant asked CCC for some salt and CCC told
him to get some in the kitchen. CCC was scared because appellant just raped
his sister. In the afternoon, CCC went to Zamboanga to report the rape
incident to his mother BBB.

BBB testified that she is the mother of AAA, who is mute and has
very low comprehension level. On 1 March 2005, she was in the house of
her mother in Pifian, Zamboanga del Norte. At around 6:00 p.m., her son
CCC arrived and told her that AAA was raped by appellant, who is her
fourth degree cousin and neighbor. The following day, BBB left for Dapitan
and brought AAA to the DSWD, where they were referred to a policeman
who investigated them. Thereafter, they proceeded to the City Health Office
where AAA was examined. After the examination, they went back to the
police station to request the arrest of appellant.

Dr. Rolito Cataluna testified that the City Health Officer who
examined AAA and signed the medical certificate had already gone to the
United States of America. Dr. Cataluna then explained that the medical
certificate states that AAA had lacerations in the vaginal canal which may be
caused by biking, or an inserted penis, among others. He added that the
result of the urinalysis conducted on AAA indicated the presence of
spermatozoa in her vagina.

SPO4 Ronnie Quizo testified that on 2 March 2005, BBB came to the
police station to report that her daughter AAA was raped by appellant. SPO4
4 CA rollo, p. 26.
~
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 224595

Quizo and his fellow police officers then arrested appellant and brought him
to the police station for investigation.

Dr. Zita Adaza testified that on 30 August 2006, she examined AAA
and found her: (1) mentally retarded and mute; (2) totally dependent on her
mother; (3) has cardiovascular problem; (4) has a very low mental
classification; and (5) has a profound level of 5 which is the lowest level.
Dr. Adaza concluded that AAA, whose mental condition is congenital, has
complete lack of intellect.

On the other hand, the defense presented two witnesses: appellant and
Eneria Tobio 5 (Eneria), the wife of appellant's cousin. Appellant alleged
that in the evening of 28 February 2005, he attended the birthday party of
EEE's daughter at AAA's house. The party ended at around 10:00 p.m. and
he left the party with Eneria, EEE and his friends. At around 12:00 midnight,
he slept in the sala ofEneria's house and woke up the following day at 10:00
a.m. Appellant admitted that he went to AAA' s house to ask for salt from
CCC, but he was there in the evening of 28 February 2005 and not on 1
March 2005. On cross-examination, appellant stated that Eneria' s house is
very near AAA's house which is only 150 meters away. Appellant admitted
that he knew AAA was mute and mentally retarded.

Eneria testified that on 28 February 2005, she and appellant were at

the birthday party of EEE's daughter. At around 10:00 p.m., she, her
children and appellant left the party and went home to her house to sleep.
Eneria testified that appellant slept in her house and that he could not have
raped AAA because he stayed in her house the whole night and only left the
following day.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

On 27 November 2012, the trial court rendered the Judgment

convicting appellant of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
[GGG] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed
against AAA. Consequently, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the private complainant
the amount of !!50,000.00 as civil indemnity, !!50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

With costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED. 6

The trial court found appellant guilty of raping AAA who is mute,
mentally retarded, and incapable of giving consent. Although AAA was
5 Also referred to in the records as Eneria Tubio.
6
CA rollo, p. 42. ~
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 224595

already 21 years old at the time of the incident, she has a "level 5" mental
capacity which is the lowest mental classification. The evidence showed that
the mental capacity of AAA is equivalent to an IQ of below 20 which is
similar to that of an average 2-year-old child. Appellant was positively
identified by CCC as the rapist, and the medical findings were consistent
with the charge of rape. The trial <;ourt held that CCC's categorical and
positive identification of appellant as the rapist of AAA prevails over the
alibi and denial by appellant, especially since appellant has not imputed any
bad faith or ill-motive on the part of AAA, BBB, or CCC. Furthermore, the
trial court held that it was not impossible for appellant to be at the crime
scene considering that Eneria's house, where he slept the night before the
incident was only 150 meters away from AAA's house. The trial court held
that "Article 266-B, in relation to Article 266-A of the [RPC], as amended,
provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the carnal knowledge of a
woman who is under 12 years old, as in this case, a woman who is a mental
retardate which the accused knew." 7

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court's decision with

modification. The CA upheld the trial court's finding that appellant had
carnal knowledge of AAA, who was proven to be a mental retardate. The
CA held that appellant's denial and alibi are weak and cannot prevail over
the positive identification of him as the rapist. Besides, considering that
AAA's house is only 150 meters away from Eneria's house where appellant
stayed, it was not impossible for appellant to go to AAA's house on the date
and time of the rape incident. Under Article 266-B of the RPC, death penalty
is imposed if the offender knew of the mental disability of the victim, as in
this case. But since death penalty has been abolished by Republic Act No.
9346, the CA sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole instead of death penalty. The CA also increased
the civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000 each and the exemplary
damages to P30,000. Furthermore, the CA ruled that the damages awarded
should earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of
the decision until fully paid.

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision dated 27 January 2016

states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment
dated 27 November 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Dipolog
City is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-Appellant
GGG is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole.

7
Id. at 41.
~
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 224595

Accused-Appellant GGG is also ordered to pay AAA the amount

of Php 75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, Php 75,000.00 as moral
damages and Php 30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The award of
damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) from the
finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 8

Hence, this appeal.

The Issue

Whether appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Ruling: of the Court

We find the appeal without merit. The CA was correct in affirming

the ruling of the trial court that appellant's guilt for the crime he was accused
of was clearly established by the witnesses and the evidence of the
prosecution. The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses
and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the
witnesses and their testimonies. 9 The trial court's findings are accorded great
respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some
substantial facts, which if considered ·might affect the result of the case_ Io

Denial and alibi, which are self-serving negative evidence and easily
fabricated, cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive
testimony of a credible witness. I I The victim's brother, CCC, who witnessed
the rape incident, positively identified appellant as the person who raped his
sister AAA. Furthermore, as found by the CA and the trial court, appellant's
alibi is weak considering that Eneria' s house where appellant slept is only
150 meters away from AAA's house, such that it was not impossible for
appellant to go to AAA' s house on the date and time of the rape incident.

However, appellant should be convicted of qualified rape pursuant to

Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the RPC since the Information alleged, and it
was proven, that appellant knew at the time of the commission of the crime
that the victim AAA is mentally retarded. I 2

Article 266-B, paragraph 10 ofthe RPC, as amended, provides:

e

8
Rollo, p. 27.
9 People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229862, 19 June 2019; People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, 10 July
2019; People v. Ampo, G.R. No. 229938, 27 February 2019; People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
219088, 13 June 2018.
10 People v. Verona, G.R. No. 227748, 19 June 2019; People v. Elimancil, G.R. No. 234951, 28
January 2019; Fernandez v. People, G.R. No. 217542, 21 November 2018.
II People v. Dolendo, G.R. No. 223098, 3 June 2019; People v. Batalla, G.R. No. 234323, 7 January
2019; People v. Pi/pa, G.R. No. 225336, 5 September 2018.
12 People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 206419 (Resolution), 1 June 2016; People v. Bangsoy, 778 Phil.
294 (2016).

~
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 224595

ART. 266-B. Penalties. - xx x

xxxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:

xxxx

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. (Boldfacing supplied)

In this case, appellant admitted that he knew that AAA is mute and
mentally retarded. Since appellant knew of AAA's mental disability when
appellant raped her, the proper designation of the crime committed is
qualified rape. The imposable penalty for qualified rape is death. However,
in view of Republic Act No. 9346, 13 which prohibits the imposition of death
penalty, appellant's penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole.
e
Furthermore, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of
civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should all be
increased to P 100,000. 14 The damages awarded should earn interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully
paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. We AFFIRM with

MODIFICATION the Decision dated 27 January 2016 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01221-MIN. Accused-appellant GGG is
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE
and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole.

Accused-appellant is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of Pl00,000 as

civil indemnity, Pl00,000 as moral damages, and 1}100,000 as exemplary
damages. The amounts awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

13 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES.

Approved on 24 June 2006.
14 People v. Moya, G.R. No. 228260, 10 June 2019; People v. Vai'ias, G.R. No. 225511, 20 March
2019; People v. Bauit, G.R. No. 223102, 14 February 2018; People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806
(2016).
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 224595
e

WE CONCUR:

NS.CAGUIOA

~~--~R. AMY/~RO-JAVIER
~:!ociate Justice · Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

Acting Chief Justice