SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225499. September 13, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALEJANDRO OCOMEN @ ANDOY, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 September 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225499 (People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Ocomen @ Andoy). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated February 9, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05761, which affirmed with modifications the Joint Decision 2 dated August 30, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Branch 43 in Criminal Case No. 2011-0474-D finding accused-appellant Alejandro Ocomen @ Andoy (Ocomen) guilty of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 3
Four sets of Information were filed against Ocomen by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2011-0548-D
"That on or about February 6, 2010 in the evening in Brgy. Macayug, Mangaldan, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused thru force, threat and intimidation did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with [AAA], 4a no formal education, scavenger, beggar and mental retardate, which mental disability is known to the accused, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 266-A of the [RPC], in relation to Art. 266-B (10) thereof, as amended by RA 8353." 5
Criminal Case No. 2011-0474-D
"That on or about April 14, 2011 in Brgy. Macayug, Mangaldan, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with [AAA], a no formal education, scavenger, beggar and mental retardate fifteen (15)[-]year[-]old minor and deemed exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse, which mental disability is known to the accused, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 266-A of the [RPC], in relation to Art. 266-B (10) thereof, as amended by RA 8353." 6
Criminal Case No. 2011-0475-D
"That on or about April 15, 2011 in Brgy. Macayug, Mangaldan, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with [AAA], a no formal education, scavenger, beggar and mental retardate fifteen (15)[-]year[-]old minor and deemed exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse, which mental disability is known to the accused, to her damage and prejudice. AScHCD
Contrary to Art. 266-A of the [RPC], in relation to Art. 266-B (10) thereof, as amended by RA 8353." 7
Criminal Case No. 2011-0476-D
"That on or about April 16, 2011 in Brgy. Macayug, Mangaldan, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with [AAA], a no formal education, scavenger, beggar and mental retardate fifteen (15)[-]year[-]old minor and deemed exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse, which mental disability is known to the accused, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 266-A of the [RPC], in relation to Art. 266-B (10) thereof, as amended by RA 8353." 8
The Facts
The victim AAA, then a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, is a mental retardate. However, despite her mental condition, AAA was able to narrate in open court how she was sexually assaulted by Ocomen several times at the patalan near the river, fields and near the school. Despite difficulty in recollecting the exact dates of the incidents of rape, AAA was able to describe how Ocomen successfully had carnal knowledge of her when the former inserted his penis inside her vagina against her will. She was also able to identify Ocomen in open court as the one who violated her. 9
Furthermore, BBB, AAA's mother, corroborated the statements of AAA. She narrated that she first learned of the ordeal of her daughter on February 9, 2010 when the latter told her that Ocomen raped her. Immediately, they reported the incident to the police station and AAA was medically examined by Dr. Brenda Tumacder, who confirmed by the results of the medico-legal report that there were findings of old healed lacerations on the private organ of AAA. After a year, AAA was raped again by Ocomen. On April 14, 2011, AAA went to the riverside and went missing until April 16, 2011. Upon her return, AAA revealed to BBB that their neighbor Ocomen, through threats, had sexual intercourse with her at the riverside. Immediately, she brought AAA to the nearest police station to report the incident. Thereafter, they went to the hospital for medical examination and to Municipal Social Welfare Office of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to report the rape incidents. 10
Dr. Teofilo Del Prado (Dr. Del Prado), Chief of Dental Department of Region I Medical Center in Dagupan City, also testified for the prosecution with regard to the minority of AAA. Based on the dental examination and panoramic x-ray of the third molar and oral cavity of the victim, Dr. Del Prado explained that the age of AAA is estimated to be around 16 years old. 11
On his part, Ocomen denied raping AAA and interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. He feigned lack of knowledge of the accusation against him and insisted that he never saw AAA on the alleged incidents of rape on April 14 to 16, 2011, as he was always travelling to buy and sell corn. While he admitted that he knew the victim being his neighbor, he denied any interaction with her. 12
Ruling of the RTC
After trial, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Ocomen beyond reasonable doubt. Despite her mental retardation, AAA identified Ocomen as the person who had carnal knowledge of her. AAA was able to demonstrate in open court how Ocomen bent his body, brought out his penis and inserted it inside her vagina. This sexual act was corroborated by the results of the medico-legal examination indicating several healed lacerations in different positions. The trial court found AAA to be of minor age and in a state of mental retardation when Ocomen had carnal knowledge of the victim. AAA's minority was proven based on the dental examination conducted by Dr. Del Prado finding the victim below the age of minority. Meanwhile, the mental retardation was established through the DSWD social case study report and court observation of AAA's physical appearance and behavioral demeanor. On the other hand, the trial court disregarded the defenses of alibi and denial of Ocomen for being self-serving. However, in the absence of a clear testimony as to how many times Ocomen sexually abused AAA, the trial court convicted Ocomen for only one crime of rape. The dispositive portion of the Joint Decision 13 dated August 30, 2012 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused ALEJANDRO OCOMEN is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the [RPC] committed against the victim AAA in Criminal Case No. 2011-0474-D and hereby imposes on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is likewise ordered to indemnify AAA in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, fifty thousand pesos (P50,000[.00]) as moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00).
For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 2010-0548-D; 2011-0475-D and 2011-0476-D, accused is hereby acquitted of the crimes charged.
SO ORDERED.14
Ruling of the CA
Upon appeal, the CA affirmed with modifications the ruling of the trial court. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that Ocomen was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against AAA, a minor and mental retardate victim, based on the testimony of the victim and medical report of sustained hymenal lacerations. The Court quotes the dispositive portion of the CA Decision 15 dated February 9, 2015, as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, the appeal is hereby DENIED. Hence, the Decision dated August 30, 2012 for one count of rape in Criminal Case No. 2011-0474-D is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION insofar as the amount of civil indemnity which is hereby increased to P75,000[.00], P75,000[.00] as moral damages and P50,000[.00] as exemplary damages, plus 6% interest per annum from finality of this judgment until fully paid. AcICHD
SO ORDERED.16
Ruling of the Court
After a thorough review of the records of the case, the Court affirms with modifications the findings of both the trial and appellate courts and dismisses the appeal of Ocomen for lack of merit.
Under Article 266 (A) of the RPC, rape is committed through the following acts:
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.
Rape is qualified under Art. 266 (B) if the knowledge of mental disability is known to the offender.
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. (Emphasis Ours)
In People v. Suansing, 17 the Court held that in order for the prosecution of rape to prosper, there must be proof that there was carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental retardation.
[F]or the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2) through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. From these requisites, it can thus be deduced that rape is committed the moment the offender has sexual intercourse with a person suffering from mental retardation. "[C]arnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape. A mental condition of retardation deprives the complainant of that natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood. For this reason, sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is incapable of giving consent to the carnal act already constitutes rape[,] without requiring proof that the accused used force and intimidation in committing the act." Only the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim and the latter's mental retardation need to be proved. 18
Simply stated, what is primordial is for the prosecution to prove that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental retardation. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary since a mental retardate cannot give her consent to a sexual act. 19
In People v. Dalandas, 20 citing People v. Dumanon, 21 the Court has defined mental retardation in the context of "deprivation of reason" under the RPC:
Mental retardation is a chronic condition present from birth or early childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by standardized tests. It manifests itself in impaired adaptation to the daily demands of the individual's own social environment. Commonly, a mental retardate exhibits a slow rate of maturation, physical and/or psychological, as well as impaired learning capacity. 22
As further elucidated in Dalandas, mental retardation can be proven by presentation of medical/clinical evidence or testimony of witnesses in court or through observation by the trial court of the demeanor and deportment of the victim. It may be manifested through an overt act, appearance, attitude and behavior or inability to achieve intelligible or coherent speech, indicative of the impaired mental condition of the person. 23
In the present case, the Court is in accord with the findings and conclusion of the trial and appellate courts that AAA is suffering from mental retardation based on her inability to immediately grasp the questions propounded to her and upon observation of her physical appearance and demeanor in court.
The Court also finds that the mental retardation of AAA does not impair her credibility as a witness.
A mentally-deficient person can be considered as a credible witness depending on the quality of her perceptions and how she may be able to communicate her ordeal in court. 24 "As long as a witness' testimony is straightforward, candid and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, and his or her demeanor is consistent with one who has been victimized to thus bolster credibility with the verity born out of human nature and experience, credibility can be accorded to him or her." 25
In this case, AAA was able to narrate, though with difficulty on the exact time and date of the incidents, how Ocomen ravished her through sexual intercourse. She was able to positively identify Ocomen as the person who abused her. In addition, the testimonial declaration of AAA was corroborated by the medico-legal report of sustained healed lacerations of AAA and testimony of BBB that her daughter confided to her that Ocomen raped her several times at the patalan under a threat of death.
On the other hand, the Court cannot subscribe to the assertions of alibi and denial of Ocomen. Other than his self-serving statement that he never saw AAA as he was travelling to buy and engage corn on the alleged incidents of rape, no other evidence was offered to overturn the positive testimony of AAA. Further, even granting that Ocomen was indeed trading corns in the said dates from his house to the adjacent town, the defense of alibi is still inherently weak since it was still physically possible for him to be at the place of the crime. 26 TAIaHE
With respect to the penalty, the Court affirms with modifications the penalties imposed upon by the CA.
Jurisprudence 27 instructs us that when rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim's mental retardation and such state of mental retardation is alleged in the information, the penalty is increased to death and the nature of the offense is changed from simple to qualified rape. 28 In this case, the twin requirements to elevate as qualified rape are satisfied with due to explicit allegation of mental retardation in the information and personal knowledge of the accused of the said mental state, in view of his admission that he knew AAA for a long time, he being a neighbor of the victim.
However, upon the effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 29 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in lieu of death penalty, shall be imposed to Ocomen.
As to the award of damages imposed, the Court affirms with modifications the amount imposed pursuant to the recent ruling in People v. Jugueta. 30 For qualified rape where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346, the Court modifies the award of damages to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. Further, the Court imposes an interest to the damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until said amounts are fully paid. 31
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the appeal of Alejandro Ocomen @ Andoy and AFFIRMSwith MODIFICATION the Decision dated February 9, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05761 that the damages awarded shall be increased to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages with an imposition of interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 147-159.
2. Rendered by Judge Caridad Villegas-Galvez; id. at 91-107.
3.Republic Act No. 8353 entitled AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE ANTI-RAPE LAW OF 1997." Approved on September 30, 1997.
4. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial 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.
5. CA rollo, p. 31.
6.Id. at 36.
7.Id. at 37.
8.Id. at 38.
9.Id. at 97-98.
10.Id. at 95-96.
11.Id. at 94-95.
12.Id. at 99-101.
13.Id. at 91-107.
14.Id. at 106-107.
15.Id. at 147-159.
16.Id. at 159.
17. 717 Phil. 100 (2013).
18.Id. at 109.
19.People v. Monticalvo, 702 Phil. 643, 660 (2013).
20. 442 Phil. 688 (2002).
21. 401 Phil. 658 (2000).
22.People v. Dalandas, supra note 20, at 695 (2002).
23.Id. at 697.
24.People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Umanito, G.R. No. 208648, April 13, 2016.
25.People v. Macapal, Jr., 501 Phil. 675, 684 (2005).
26.People of the Philippines v. Dandito Lastrollo y Doe, G.R. No. 212631, November 7, 2016.
27.People v. Monticalvo, supra note 19.
28.Id. at 666.
29. Approved on June 24, 2006.
30. 788 SCRA 331.
31.People of the Philippines v. Ruben Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 206419, June 1, 2016.