1 People-vs-Baay Rape

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JONATHAN BAAY y FALCO
G.R. No. 220143| June 7, 2017 | Tijam, J

(on appeal to SC)
DOCTRINE: Carnal knowledge with a mental retardate whose mental age is that
of a person below 12 years, while akin to statutory rape under Article 266-A, Accused-appellant faults the R TC for finding him guilty beyond reasonable
paragraph l(d), should still be designated as simple rape under paragraph l(b). doubt of raping AAA. He insisted that he should be acquitted of the charge
because doubts linger as to whether or not he had sex with AAA or the rape
SUMMARY: AAA, who has mental retardation was raped by the Accused incident happened, considering AAA's conflicting responses to the queries
sometime in July 2005. AAA testified that she was coached by her mother on regarding the same. The accused-appellant capitalizes on the fact that during
what to say and to point at the accused as the one who had sex with her. RTC AAA's cross-examination, the latter candidly stated that accused-appellant did
convicted the Accused with Statutory Rape. Supreme Court held that if the not have sex with her.
victim of the rape is a person with mental abnormality, the crime committed is
only Simple Rape. CRIME CHARGED: Statutory Rape
FACTS: Sometime in July 2005, the accused invited AAA, a 22 yr old female RTC: RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove that the accused-
with mental retardation, to go to the forest, where the Accuesed pulled down appellant had carnal knowledge with AAA, a mental retardate. It found AAA's
her shorts and under wear and inserted his penis and started a pumping testimony credible despite the apparent inconsistencies, explaining that the
motion. Thereafter she went home. After the incident, AAA got pregnant. same was due to her mental condition. The RTC observed that AAA had the
tendency to agree with leading questions asked. The trial court also noted that
During cross-examination, she testified that she was coached by her mother on in the case study dated January 4, 2006 conducted by the Municipal Social
what to say and to point at the accused as the one who had sex with her. The Welfare and Development Officer of Mambusao, Capiz, AAA was consistent in
trial court also noted that AAA made conflicting answers to the query to pointing to the accused-appellant as the person who abused her.
whether or not accused had sex with her.
CA: Affirmed
AAA’s mother BBB testified that she came to know that her daughter was
pregnant when she brought her to Dr. Hector Flores for a medical check-up and ISSUE: Whether the Trial Court correctly convicted Accused with Statutory
therein, AAA told her about the rape incident in the forest. Rape.
Dra. Adicula-Sicad testified that the mental faculties of AAA are severely RULING: No.
deficient in areas where the executive functioning judgment and other areas of
intellect are concerned. According to Dra. Adicula-Sicad's assessment, AAA's In this case, it is not disputed that AAA was already 22 years old when she was
age is comparable to a child of around 4-5 years old as a result of mental raped albeit she has a mental age of 4-5 years old.
retardation, which is congenital in nature. It being congenital in nature; the
victim could not have consented or would not be in any position to give consent We hold that the term statutory rape should only be confined to situations
as to the consequences of a certain act. where the victim of rape is a person less than 12 years of age. If the victim of
rape is a person with mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation, the crime
DEFENSE: Accused-appellant denied the allegations against him. He testified committed is simple rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (b) as she is
that AAA's house is about 500 meters away from their house and that he knew considered "deprived of reason" notwithstanding that her mental age is
that AAA is mentally retarded. He averred that he could not have raped AAA in equivalent to that of a person under 12. In short, carnal knowledge with a
July 2005 because from May 15 to August 30, 2005, he was working on the farm mental retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12 years, while
of a .certain Motet Monajan which is about one kilometer away from the akin to statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph l(d), should still be
forested area where the alleged crime took place. He further averred that AAA's designated as simple rape under paragraph l(b).
family accused him of rape because of the trees he planted beside the pigpen
owned by AAA's family
While it was proven and admitted during trial that accused-appellant knew of
AAA's mental retardation, the same was not alleged in the Information, hence,
cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
(discussion re: affirmation of conviction)
Even though AAA's testimony was not flawless in all particulars, We do not find
any justifiable reason to deviate from the findings and conclusion of the R TC, as
affirmed by the CA. Given the victim's mental condition, being a 22-year old
woman with a mental age of 4-5 years old, We find it highly improbable that she
had simply concocted or fabricated the rape charge against the accused-
appellant. We neither find it likely that she was merely coached into testifying
against accused-appellant, precisely, considering her limited intellect. In her
mental state, only a very startling event would leave a lasting impression on her
so that she would be able to recall it later when asked. At any rate, the trial
court correctly pointed out that what is significant, notwithstanding
discrepancies in AAA's testimony, was the positive identification of the
accused-appellant as the person who raped or had sex with her.

1 People-vs-Baay Rape

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 People-vs-Baay Rape

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 People-vs-Baay Rape

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JONATHAN BAAY y FALCO

G.R. No. 220143| June 7, 2017 | Tijam, J

(discussion re: affirmation of conviction)

You might also like