THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220757. May 12, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROEL MAJADAS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated May 12, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 220757 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ROEL MAJADAS, accused-appellants). — This Court resolves the appeal assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court Judgment 2 finding Roel Majadas (Majadas) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
On September 8, 2005, an Information was filed against Majadas, charging him with rape, as follows:
That sometime in November 2004, inside a rice granary at Brgy. _____________, Ormoc City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation and with the use of a knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of the victim, [AAA], 22 years old and mentally retardate (sic) without her consent and against her will, which resulted to said victim's untimely pregnancy.
In violation of Article 335, RPC, as amended by RA 8353[.] 3
Majadas pleaded not guilty during his arraignment, then trial followed. The prosecution presented the victim, AAA, her mother BBB, and Dr. Marilyn Pascual (Dr. Pascual) as witnesses. The defense presented Majadas and Leopoldo Sasing (Sasing). 4
The prosecution alleged that sometime in November 2004, AAA went to her godmother's house, which was across from Majadas's house. 5
While AAA was feeding the dog inside the rice granary of her godmother, Majadas appeared and poked her with a knife. 6 He immediately removed his clothes before he undressed AAA, then began to touch her private parts. While holding the knife against her, Majadas inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina and made a push-and-pull movement, causing AAA pain. 7
On separate occasions, AAA mentioned the incident to her father, as well as her aunt who lived in Sto. Niño, Kananga. 8
On January 5, 2005, AAA's mother, BBB, brought her to the local physician since AAA missed her period. Dr. Pascual examined her and found that AAA was five months pregnant. 9 The Medical Certificate dated May 24, 2005 showed the following findings:
1. wondering (sic) around attended Grade 1 but did not complete it
2. psychosis blank stare, no presence of mind, murmuring to self, talking to herself
3. cervicitis
4. laceration, 11 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock, 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock, pregnancy uterine, 5 months. 10
AAA was also examined by a psychiatrist, Dr. Violeta C. Perez (Dr. Perez), 11 who evaluated AAA as a "mental retardate" 12 (or a person with intellectual disability). 13 Though AAA was biologically 22 years old, her mental capacity fell below it. 14
During trial, AAA testified:
Pros[ecutor] Terre
Q: Why did you say that Roel is the father of your child?
A: Because that child is his.
Q: Why did you say that?
A: Because that child is his.
Q: What did he do to you?
A: He violated.
Q: Why do you say that he violated, kindly demonstrate to us?
Pros[ecutor] Terre to the court
May I request your Honor that the public be excluded?
Exclude the public
Q: May I ask again the witness. What the accused in this case did to her?
A: He raped me.
Q: When you said he raped you, what did he do, did he remove his dress?
A: He remove his clothes including his shorts.
Q: How about your clothes?
A: Yes, he also remove[d] it.
Q: Thereafter, what did he do?
A: He consummated, he violated.
Q: When he remove[d] your clothes as you mentioned a while ago, were your private parts exposed?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Then, what did he do with your private parts?
A: He touched them.
Q: What else did he do to your private parts?
A: He got a knife.
Q: After that, what did he do to your private parts?
A: He touched it.
Q: After touching it, what did he do?
A: Yes, he kept on touching my private parts.
Q: Were you able to see his penis?
A: Yes sir.
Q: What did he do to his penis?
A: He inserted his penis to my vagina.
Q: How long?
A: It was a long time.
Q: What did you feel?
Q: It was painful.
A: What did you do?
Q: I did not do anything.
A: Why?
Q: Because he held me.
A: When he, when you mentioned that he inserted his penis into your vagina, what else did you observe about his movement?
Q: He was moving.
A: How did he move, kindly demonstrate to us?
Witness standing up and demonstrated a push and pull movement. 15
BBB testified that Majadas is her sister's brother-in-law, and the rice granary where AAA fed the dog was in front of Majadas's house. Corroborating AAA's testimony, she testified that it was indeed Majadas who molested her daughter. 16
On the other hand, Majadas denied the charge of rape. He testified that in November 2004, he was in Manila working at a construction site, and only went home to Ormoc City in 2005. He added he could not have touched AAA because he is gay. 17
Sasing, a faith healer, testified that he has known Majadas for 40 years. All that time, he said he knew Majadas to be gay, and that Majadas was working in Manila in 2004. He testified that during one of his faith healing activities, he was going to Pagsanga-an when he saw AAA and her father embracing lewdly. They appeared frightened and stunned when they saw him. He further testified hearing that AAA gave birth to another child. 18
The Regional Trial Court, in its June 28, 2013 Judgment, 19 found Majadas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused ROEL MAJADAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as charged. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The accused is likewise ordered to pay the victim the following: civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof, moral damages of P50,000[.00] which are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof other than the commission of the crime and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
If the accused is a prisoner, the period of his detention shall be credited if he abides with the rules and regulations covering detained prisoners if not for only four-fifths (4/5) thereof.
SO ORDERED. 20 (Citation omitted)
The Court of Appeals, in its February 26, 2015 Decision, 21 affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated June 28, 2013, of the Regional Trial Court, Eight Judicial Region, Branch 35, Ormoc City, in Crim. Case No. 7308-0 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay [AAA] the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages plus costs. [AAA] is entitled to an interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 22 (Citation omitted)
Majadas filed a Notice of Appeal 23 on April 8, 2015, upon which the Court of Appeals elevated the case to this Court for review. 24
On December 9, 2015, this Court noted the case records and required the parties to submit their supplemental briefs. 25 Both parties manifest they would no longer do so, stating that their Briefs before the Court of Appeals would suffice. 26 The Manifestations were noted by this Court in its June 8, 2016 Resolution. 27
Upon being required by this Court, 28 the Penal Superintendent of the Leyte Regional Prison confirmed accused-appellant's confinement there in a letter dated January 22, 2018, 29 which was noted in this Court's April 11, 2018 Resolution. 30
Accused-appellant does not question the trial court's finding that AAA was a person with intellectual disability. 31 Instead, he advocates for his acquittal because, allegedly, AAA gave contradictory statements. 32
Accused-appellant argues that AAA's testimony must be discredited because she had been coached by her father. 33 He highlights AAA's cross-examination, where she testified:
Q: Who is the father of your child?
A: Roel, Sir.
Q: Roel who?
A: Majadas, Sir.
Q: Who told you that Roel Majadas is the father of your child?
A: My papa taught me, "gitudlu-an man ko sa papa nako."
Q: Did your father tell you that the father of your son is Roel Majadas?
A: Yes. 34 (Emphasis in the original)
Accused-appellant also highlights that AAA and her mother had conflicting testimonies as to the exact date when the crime was committed: AAA's sworn affidavit alleges November 2004, while BBB testified that it was January 25, 2005. 35
Raising an alibi, accused-appellant claims that he was working in Manila around the time of the alleged incident, rendering it impossible for him to rape someone in Leyte. 36
In addition, accused-appellant claims that he is gay, as corroborated by Sasing, the other defense witness. 37
The issue for resolution is whether or not the guilt of accused-appellant Roel Majadas of the crime of rape was established beyond reasonable doubt.
We affirm the Court of Appeals' ruling, but modify the crime to qualified rape and increase the award of damages.
I
Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Article 266-4. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
People v. Martinez38 lists the elements of rape under Article 266-A (1):
Accordingly, to sustain a conviction for rape through sexual intercourse, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt, namely: (i) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (ii) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, or (d) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. 39 (Citation omitted)
Here, the prosecution established through AAA's testimony that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her.
Accused-appellant argues that AAA's testimony must be discredited for its contradictions on material points, considering that she had an intellectual disability and her father coached her. He highlights the contrast between AAA's "narration of being raped by [accused-appellant] with that of her eventual admission that she was just being coached by her father to implicate [accused-appellant] as being the father of her child." 40
Contrary to accused-appellant's claim, AAA's intellectual disability did not detract from the strength of her testimony. To begin with, her statement during cross-examination that she was taught by her father is not sufficient to acquit accused-appellant. The question posed to AAA at that time was who the child's father is, and not who raped her. In People v. Gahi: 41
It is well-entrenched in our case law that the rape victim's pregnancy and resultant childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was raped. Pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter's will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner. 42 (Citation omitted)
In any case, the trial court noted that despite AAA's intellectual disability, she narrated what accused-appellant had done to her. She described her ordeal step by step: how accused touched her, removed her clothes, inserted his penis, and made a push-and-pull movement. 43 AAA also narrated that she felt pain when accused-appellant's penis was in her vagina. 44 Bolstering her testimony is Dr. Pascual's medical findings of various lacerations in different positions of her private part. 45
People v. Quintos46 involved a rape victim who was also a person with intellectual disability. In upholding her testimony, this Court stated:
Competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capable (sic) and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused. 47
As to the alleged discrepancy between AAA's sworn affidavit and her mother's testimony on the date the crime was committed, the Court of Appeals ruled that the inconsistency did not weaken AAA's credibility. 48 Citing People v. Lor, 49 the Court of Appeals explained that "rape victims are not expected to cherish in their memories an accurate account of the dates, number of times[,] and manner they were violated." 50
Further, accused-appellant's alibi cannot stand. His claim that he was in Manila around the time the crime was committed was not supported by any piece of evidence, apart from Sasing's testimony. As the Court of Appeals correctly ruled, accused-appellant could have submitted a certification from his employer or his daily time records, but he did not. In addition, it was not impossible for accused-appellant to travel to and from Leyte in 2004. 51
Neither will accused-appellant's defense of being gay hold, because Sasing's testimony that accused-appellant is gay and prefers men was unsubstantiated.
This Court is not saying that sexual orientation deserves no weight when invoked as a defense. In an appropriate case where it is duly proven, sexual orientation that precludes the likelihood of one engaging in sexual relations with another person may be given weight. Here, however, we find that the mere invocation of being gay — supported solely by a testimony of one other person — does not preclude the commission of the offense raised against accused-appellant.
This is not the first time that being gay was raised as a defense by an accused in a rape case. In People v. Salazar, 52 accused Salazar argued that "he could not have raped complainant because he did not want a woman, but a man." 53 During trial, he presented his mother and another relative to testify that he is gay and that he did not rape the complainant. 54
This Court acquitted Salazar based on reasonable doubt and even stated that no rape happened, 55 because the complainant's testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable. In addition, one of the prosecution witnesses corroborated Salazar's testimony. 56 Though Salazar's acquittal was not hinged on his sexual orientation, the prosecution did not discredit the defense witnesses.
Here, the trial court held that accused-appellant could have produced other pieces of evidence to show that he is incapable of having sexual relations with the opposite sex. 57 The Court of Appeals agreed and stated:
And, assumingarguendo, that accused-appellant is a homosexual, this alone will not render him incapable of having sexual intercourse with a woman. Aside from accused-appellant's self-serving testimony and that of Leopoldo Sasing, accused-appellant submitted no other competent evidence that he is a homosexual who is not aroused by females. 58
Besides, AAA positively identified accused-appellant as the person who violated her. Her testimony was straightforward and detailed. She even demonstrated in court the push-and-pull movement done to her. Against a defense witness stating that accused-appellant is gay, AAA's testimony will stand.
II
The rape is qualified if any of the following circumstances under Article 266-B are present. The provision states in part:
Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx
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.
We hold that accused-appellant should be convicted of qualified rape.
AAA's intellectual disability was alleged in the Information and was likewise established. Around the time of the rape, AAA was evaluated by Dr. Perez to be biologically 22 years old, with a mental capacity that fell below it. 59 In addition, Dr. Pascual noted the following:
1. wondering (sic) around attended Grade 1 but did not complete it
2. psychosis blank stare, no presence of mind, murmuring to self, talking to herself
3. cervicitis
4. laceration, 11 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock, 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock, pregnancy uterine, 5 months. 60
The Information alleged that AAA was "mentally retardate (sic)" or with intellectual disability at the time of the rape. This was sufficient notice to accused-appellant of the qualifying circumstance that attended the crime. He did not claim that he did not know of AAA's disability at the time, and did not contest the medical findings on her mental state. 61 In fact, he even used it to discredit AAA's testimony, but of course, to no avail. It appears, then, that accused-appellant was aware of AAA's intellectual disability when he raped her. The crime should be modified to qualified rape.
The amounts of damages awarded should also be modified. In line with People v. Jugueta, 62 the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are all increased to P75,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals' February 26, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB CR.-HC. No. 01701 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS.
Accused-appellant Roel Majadas is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape, punished under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is also DIRECTED to pay the victim moral damages, civil indemnity, and exemplary damages worth P75,000.00 each.
All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until their full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, M., J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated May 6, 2021 viceLopez, J., J.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-16. The February 26, 2015 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of this Court) of the Eighteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. CA rollo, pp. 45-57. The June 28, 2013 Judgment was penned by Acting Presiding Judge Rogelio R. Joboco of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Branch 35.
3.Id. at 45.
4.Rollo, p. 6.
5.Id. at 4-5.
6.Id. at 5.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11. CA rollo, p. 50.
12.Id.
13. The 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) states that the term "mental retardation" is now replaced by "intellectual disability." See pp. 33 and 809.
14. CA rollo, 50.
15.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
16. CA rollo, p. 47.
17.Rollo, p. 6 and CA rollo, p. 48.
18.Id.
19. CA rollo, pp. 45-57.
20.Id. at 57.
21.Rollo, pp. 4-16.
22.Id. at 16.
23.Rollo, pp. 17-19. Filed under Rule 125, Section 13 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
24.Id. at 1.
25.Id. at 23.
26.Id. at 25-33.
27.Id. at 34.
28.Id. at 36.
29.Id. at 42-43.
30.Id. at 45.
31. CA rollo, p. 37.
32.Id. at 37-38.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 37.
35.Id. at 39-40.
36.Id. at 35.
37.Id. at 40-41.
38. 827 Phil. 410 (2018) [Per J. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
39.Id. at 420.
40. CA rollo, pp. 37-38.
41. 727 Phil. 642 (2014) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
42.Id. at 660 citing People v. Bejic, 552 Phil. 555, 573 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
43. CA rollo, p. 54.
44.Id. at 47.
45. CA rollo, p. 46.
46. 746 Phil. 809 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
47.Id. at 825 citing People v. Monticalvo, 702 Phil. 643 (2013) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
48.Rollo, p. 13.
49. 413 Phil. 725 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].
50.Rollo, p. 13.
51.Id. at 12.
52. 400 Phil. 598 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
53.Id. at 607.
54.Id. at 608.
55.Id. at 612.
56.Id. at 611.
57. CA rollo, pp. 55-56.
58.Rollo, p. 14.
59. CA rollo, pp. 50-51.
60.Rollo, p. 5.
61. CA rollo, p. 37.
62. 783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].