THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202183. February 22, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROY BAUTISTA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 22, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202183 (People of the Philippines vs. Roy Bautista). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated May 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 00915, which affirmed the conviction of Roy Bautista (Bautista) for the crime of Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 266-B in relation to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
Facts of the Case
An Information was filed against Bautista charging him of the crime of Rape committed on March 1, 2001 in Negros Occidental against a 42-year-old mental retardate. 2
Bautista pleaded "not guilty" during arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued after pre-trial.
The evidence of the prosecution established that: (i) on March 1, 2001, at around 8:00 a.m., BBB 3 was busy doing household chores in their house in Negros Occidental; (ii) while she was fixing her beddings, she noticed Bautista through a window roaming around the place looking for a spider; (iii) BBB saw him proceed to her father's house which was about 100 meters away; (iv) she followed Bautista because her elder sister AAA, a mental retardate, was there alone; (v) upon entering the house, BBB saw Bautista raping her sister AAA from behind; (vi) BBB cursed Bautista and hit him with a bamboo stick; (vii) Bautista turned his back to BBB and said "just once" before he went away; and (viii) the medical certificate issued upon physical examination of AAA showed that she sustained "an almost round the clock laceration, or all around her vagina, and that such lacerations were inflicted seven (7) to ten (10) days" before said examination on March 2, 2001. 4
The defense, on the contrary, presented Bautista who denied the charge and testified that: (i) on March 1, 2001, at around 9:00 a.m., he was in a vacant lot, which was a bit farther from the house of AAA, looking for a spider for his lame nephew; (ii) after he found one, he then went to the house of AAA to light his cigarette but no one responded when he called out for any occupant; (iii) he called the second time stating that he needs to light a cigarette and AAA answered that a match box is in the kitchen near the stove; (iv) believing what he was told, he entered the kitchen door and looked for the match box but found nothing; (v) AAA later came down and handed him the match box; (vi) he lighted his cigarette with his back facing the kitchen door which was half a meter away; (vii) BBB struck him from the back when he was about to hand back the match box to AAA; (viii) Bautista uttered to BBB, "you're stupid, why did you strike me?" which made BBB desist from hitting him again and so he left; and (ix) he returned to work in the sugarcane field after attending a funeral. 5
Ruling of the Trial Court
On July 25, 2007, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, Branch 55 rendered a Decision 6 convicting Bautista of the crime of Rape. He was, accordingly, sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA, in its Decision dated May 17, 2011, affirmed Bautista's conviction based on the following observations and conclusions, to wit: (i) AAA's categorical narration of the fact of carnal knowledge and her positive and unwavering identification of Bautista as her rapist; 7 (ii) the RTC's disquisition on the truthfulness of AAA's testimony as supported by the record; 8 (iii) no satisfactory showing that the RTC overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied certain facts or circumstances which could affect the result of the case; 9 (iv) AAA's sincere and straightforward testimony was fully corroborated by BBB, an eyewitness; 10 (v) no dubious or improper reason proved why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against Bautista or implicate him in a heinous crime; 11 and (vi) the mental retardation of AAA has been duly established via clinical/medical evidence and observations of the trial court and was never objected to by Bautista. 12 ATICcS
The CA affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua including the payment of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity but deleted the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages as there was no aggravating circumstance proved.
Hence, this petition.
Ruling of the Court
There is no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA.
The mental illness of the victim, notwithstanding, is considered competent, credible and truthful as long as she can recount her experience in a straightforward, spontaneous, and believable manner especially when corroborated by other evidence, such as in the instant case.
Here, AAA was able to narrate her harrowing experience on how Bautista took advantage of her mental retardation in order for him to successfully gain sexual congress with her. Such fact was strongly corroborated not only by her sister BBB, an eyewitness, but further by the result of her physical examination which revealed that she suffered lacerations all over her vagina seven (7) to ten (10) days before AAA was examined.
Also, "[p]roof 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
The Court further affirms the penalties imposed by the CA. "Exemplary damages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct." 14 Thus, the award of exemplary damages is sustained in an increased amount of P30,000.00.
In addition, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid. 15
Finally, the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court, and may no longer be reviewed on Rule 45 petitions. 16
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated May 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 00915 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is likewise awarded. An interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum is additionally imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Leonen, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated January 5, 2015.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Portia Aliño Hormachuelos and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring; CA rollo, pp. 83-103.
2. Id. at 84.
3. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.
4. CA rollo, p. 35.
5. Id. at 37.
6. Issued by Judge Franklin J. Demonteverde; id. at 34-40.
7. Id. at 91-92.
8. Id. at 92-93.
9. Id. at 93.
10. Id. at 93-95.
11. Id. at 96.
12. Id. at 97-100.
13. People v. Monticalvo, 702 Phil. 643, 660 (2013).
14. People v. Saludo, 662 Phil. 738, 761 (2011).
15. People v. Cabungan, 702 Phil. 177, 190 (2013).
16. Medalla v. Laxa, 679 Phil. 457, 461 (2012).