THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198955. September 11, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. DOMINGO LADOT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 11, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198955 (People of the Philippines v. Domingo Ladot). — The public prosecutor of Sorsogon charged the accused Domingo Ladot of the rape of a 9-year-old girl, here given the acronym GEM, 1 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon in Criminal Case 2002-5632.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that on September 26, 2001, at around 3:30 in the afternoon, Shirley Medes was about to gather farm vegetables when she heard murmurs followed by someone crying "Aray!" Medes followed the sound and found accused Ladot atop GEM, a neighbor's child, having sexual intercourse with her. 2 Ladot was naked from the waist down while GEM's dress was open at the bottom.
Fearful, Medes left the farm and went home. She did not speak to anyone about it until after she learned that GEM already reported the incident to her mother JAN. 3 The latter testified that GEM was mentally handicapped and for this reason did not attend school. 4 GEM repeatedly told her mother, "Mama, pigkayos ako ni Tata Inggo asin pigdodo-an an dudo ko." (Mama, Tata Inggo sexually abused me and sucked my breast). 5 SDTIHA
Dr. Imelda Escuadra, a psychiatrist from the Bicol Medical Center, diagnosed GEM as having moderate mental retardation with the mental age of 4 to 6 years old, schizophreniform disorder, and epilepsy. 6
In his defense, accused Ladot testified that he was working at the house of Julio Cañelas with cousin Salvador Macabuhay from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on September 26, 2001. Some barangay officials accosted him but let him go after 36 hours. Ladot claims that Cañelas' house was two kilometers from the scene of the alleged rape. Travel between the two points was by foot. He denied raping GEM and claimed that the witnesses merely wanted to malign him. 7
The RTC found Ladot guilty as charged in a decision dated July 22, 2008, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03604, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision but reduced the award of damages to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The CA noted that, while the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of mental retardation, the amended information did not allege the fact.
Ladot insists that Medes could not have seen the rapist's face since she saw only the latter's back. But, while Medes emphasized that it was Ladot's buttocks that was nearest to her, she never said that she failed to see Ladot's face or to recognize him. Indeed, she used his name to describe what he was doing to GEM. 8 She also explained that she recognized him because he lived in the same barrio and was even related to her husband. 9 The RTC, which had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses, gave full faith and credence to Medes' testimony. The Court finds no reason to disturb its findings. 10 cSaATC
Ladot's imputation of ill motive on Medes is ill-conceived as he failed to show that she had a motive to lie against him. When asked if Medes had any reason to lie, Ladot could only say that she held a grudge against him, that "it is a long story," and that they wanted him to confess to being pro-military. 11 Ladot never got to substantiate these claims.
The claim of Ladot that he was working at a certain house two kilometers away when the rape took place is quite weak since neither the person he worked for nor his cousin corroborated his testimony. Further, it was not impossible for him to go to the scene of the crime since it was only two kilometers away from where he allegedly worked.
As to the fact of carnal knowledge, the Court has always regarded hymen lacerations as physical evidence of defloration. 12 This is reflected in Exhibit "G" that the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Salve Sapinoso, prepared after examining GEM. The prosecution did not present Dr. Sapinoso anymore since the defense admitted the existence of her medical certificate. 13 That admission dispensed with the need for her to testify. 14
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMSin toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC-03604 dated March 28, 2011 that in turn affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon in Criminal Case 2002-5632 dated July 22, 2008.
SO ORDERED." EIcSDC
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Consistent with the ruling of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006], citing Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children, Sec. 40; Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act 9262, Rule XI, Sec. 63, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act"), the real name and the personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed in this resolution.
2.TSN, March 25, 2003, pp. 2-5.
3.Id. at 7.
4.TSN, September 3, 2003, pp. 5-6.
5.Records, p. 22.
6.TSN, November 19, 2003, p. 4.
7.TSN, July 13, 2006, pp. 3-6.
8.Supra note 2, at 4.
9.Id. at 5, 8.
10.People v. Mangune, G.R. No. 186463, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 578, 588-589.
11.Supra note 7, at 5-8.
12.People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 188352, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 784, 798.
13.Records, p. 141.
14.Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, 440 Phil. 54, 67 (2002).