THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 192184. April 23, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LITO MAHINAY, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 23, 2014, which reads as follows: EaIDAT
"G.R. No. 192184 (People of the Philippines v. Lito Mahinay). — The Public Prosecutor charged accused-appellant Lito Mahinay (Lito) with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oroquieta City in Criminal Case 1564-13-1292. 1
The prosecution's evidence shows that, although LIZ 2 resided in Ozamis City where her parents lived, she chose to stay with different relatives because she found their house small and dilapidated. 3 She was a retardate. On occasions when she went to Colupan Bajo in Oroquieta City she stayed with Macario Capoy, whom she called Tatay Ayong. LIZ testified that sometime before Christmas of 1999 she was at Tatay Ayong's house when accused Lito entered it and dragged her to a grassy part of the market place. 4 There, Lito removed her undergarments and told her to lie down. Lito then undressed himself and satisfied his bestial desires on her. LIZ testified that when she tried to shout for help, Lito boxed her on the face. 5 After the incident, Lito and LIZ went their separate ways.
LIZ also testified that accused Lito raped her on five different occasions either at the back of her Tatay Ayong's house or at the grassy area in the market place. 6 On cross-examination, LIZ revealed that when Lito was dragging her out of the house at one time, Tatay Ayong saw it and got mad. 7
Dr. Mercy Senados (Dr. Senados) testified that she examined LIZ and found that she suffered from healed hymenal laceration which was suggestive of sexual abuse. 8 On cross-examination, Dr. Senados testified that LIZ was cooperative and talked intelligently while being examined. The doctor found, however, that she was "a little bit mentally retarded." 9
For his defense, accused Lito denied the charge against him. He claims that at the time of the incident, he was at Tagum City, Davao del Norte, working as a mason. He claims that he left Colupan Bajo on November 12, 1999 and returned after a year or on November 1, 2000. 10 To corroborate his alibi, Lito presented the testimonies of his neighbors, Tessie Mesagrande and Emeterio Egual who testified that they saw Lito on November 12, 1999 with his family as they were leaving Colupan Bajo. They saw him only after a year or in November or December 2000. 11 In addition, Mesagrande testified that she thought LIZ to be mentally retarded. 12
Tatay Ayong also took the stand for the defense. He testified that it is not true that he saw accused Lito at one time dragging LIZ away. 13 Lito also presented LIZ's sworn statement absolving him of the crime. 14ESITcH
On May 30, 2003 the RTC rendered judgment finding accused Lito guilty of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay LIZ P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. It also ordered him to pay the cost of the suit. The RTC found the testimony of LIZ credible despite certain inconsistencies in her story. The RTC also ruled that Lito's alibi cannot stand LIZ's positive identification that he was her abuser. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision. 15
In prosecutions for rape, the state has to prove that the male accused had carnal knowledge of a woman and that he accomplished this through force or intimidation or she had otherwise been deprived of reason or rendered unconscious or was under 12 years of age or demented. 16
The CA correctly affirmed accused Lito's conviction, given that LIZ lacked the intelligence and reason needed to give consent to his sexual designs. The CA was one with the RTC in relying on the testimonies of Dr. Senados and Mesagrande that LIZ was mentally retarded.
An examination of the records compels the Court to affirm accused Lito's conviction. While psychometric evaluation can show mental retardation, 17 it is not the sole means of proving the same. The RTC had opportunity to listen to LIZ's testimony and observe her demeanor. 18 Indeed, her testimony on record reveals intellectual lapses. In addition, although LIZ did not undergo any psychological tests, Dr. Senados who may be presumed to have taken studies on the subject in medical school testified after examining her that LIZ was "a little bit retarded." Tessie, a neighbor who had known LIZ for years, categorically testified that she was mentally retarded.
The defense relies heavily on certain inconsistencies in LIZ's testimonies. But, those inconsistencies are trivial and do not change the core of her story that accused Lito raped her on several occasions. Besides, such inconsistencies are badges of truth. A perfect narration would be suspect considering her diminished mental capacity.
Lastly, Lito's conviction is sealed by LIZ's positive identification as the person who abused her. His defense of denial and alibi crumble against LIZ's categorical statement that he raped her.
Insofar as the civil damages imposed on Lito, following People v. Araojo, 19 the Court orders Lito to pay an additional P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 00051 dated August 7, 2009. The accused is hereby ordered to pay an additional P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED." CHTcSE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Branch 13.
2. Pursuant to Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials are used to represent her, to protect her privacy (People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 [2006]).
3. TSN, February 24, 2003, p. 20.
4. Id. at 6-8.
5. Id. at 9-10.
6. Id. at 19.
7. Id. at 22.
8. Records, p. 5, Medical Certificate dated November 10, 2000.
9. TSN, January 28, 2003, p. 6.
10. TSN, March 10, 2003, pp. 3-4.
11. TSN, April 8, 2003, pp. 3-4; TSN, May 6, 2003, p. 4.
12. Id. at 6.
13. Id. at 17.
14. Records, pp. 52-53.
15. Decision dated August 7, 2009.
16. People v. Bejic, 552 Phil. 555, 566 (2007).
17. People v. Dalandas, 442 Phil. 688, 698 (2002).
18. People v. Dumanon, 401 Phil. 658, 669-670 (2000).
19. G.R. No. 185203, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 295.