FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252380. November 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GERARDO "PISOK" REQUIRO, ET AL., accused,
GERARDO "PISOK" REQUIRO AND VICTOR "BITOY" REQUIRO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 252380 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Gerardo "Pisok" Requiro, et al., accused; Gerardo "Pisok" Requiro and Victor "Bitoy" Requiro, accused-appellants.
Appellants Gerardo Requiro (Gerardo) and Victor Requiro (Victor) ask the Court to reverse the verdict of conviction against each of them for three (3) counts of rape rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36, Iriga City and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. They attack anew 1 the credibility of AAA 2 based on her testimony that she was not forced or threatened to engage in the sexual act; 3 (b) she did not cry for help nor resisted their advances; and (c) she did not even breathe a word to anyone about the alleged sexual incidents as she kept her silence for years. The only reason that she filed these actions was because she got pregnant. 4
Rape is defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 5 (RA 8353), viz.:
Art. 266-A. 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.
xxx xxx xxx
Appellants were both charged with Rape under paragraph (1) (d) of Article 266-A because the victim was allegedly a mental retardate, as alleged in the Informations below, viz.:
Gerardo "Pisok" Requiro
Criminal Case No. IR-7702
That on or about 7:00 o'clock PM sometime in January 2003 at Brgy. ____________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named accused entered the house of the private complainant [AAA], of legal age, a moron, with [the] mental age of an (eight-year old), and once inside said house, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, grab[bed], kiss[ed,] and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the herein victim, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private complainant.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Criminal Case No. IR-7703
That sometime in 2004 at ________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named accused entered the house of the private complainant [AAA], of legal age, a moron, with [the] mental age of an (eight-year old), and once inside said house, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the herein victim, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private complainant.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Criminal Case No. IR-7704
That sometime in 2005 at ________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named accused entered the house of the private complainant [AAA], of legal age, a moron, with [the] mental age of an (eight-year old), and once inside said house, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the herein victim, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private complainant.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Victor "Bitoy" Requiro
Criminal Case No. IR-7708
That on or about 9:00 o'clock in the morning sometime in January 2003 at _______________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named accused entered the house of the private complainant [AAA], of legal age, a moron, with [the] mental age of an (eight-year old), and once inside said house, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, grab[bed], kiss[ed,] and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the herein victim, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private complainant.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 9
Criminal Case No. IR-7709
That sometime in 2004 at ___________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named accused, entered the house of the private complainant [AAA], of legal age, a moron, with [the] mental age of an (eight-year old), and once inside said house, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the herein victim, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private complainant.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 10
Criminal Case No. IR-7710
That sometime in 2005 at ________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named accused, entered the house of the private complainant [AAA], of legal age, a moron, with [the] mental age of an (eight-year old), and once inside said house, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the herein victim, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private complainant.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 11
While Article 266-A paragraph (1) (d) only refers to offended party under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, it also includes those with mental retardation. In People v. Manuel, Jr.12 the Court explained:
x x x People v. Quintos, x x x provided for the distinctions between "deprived of reason," "demented," and "mental retardation." To quote:
The term "deprived of reason," is associated with insanity or madness. A person deprived of reason has mental abnormalities that affect his or her reasoning and perception of reality and, therefore, his or her capacity to resist, make decisions, and give consent.
The term "demented," refers to a person who suffers from a mental condition called dementia. Dementia refers to the deterioration or loss of mental functions such as memory, learning, speaking, and social condition, which impairs one's independence in everyday activities.
We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual disability," had been classified under "deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of reason" and "demented," however, should be differentiated from the term, "mentally retarded" or "intellectually disabled." An intellectually disabled person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even ruled that they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her maturity is not there despite the physical age. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the "socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social responsibility."
Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. Both are considered incapable of giving rational consent because both are not yet considered to have reached the level of maturity that gives them the capability to make rational decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making is a function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her mental age. Therefore, in determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A(1)(d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established. (Emphases supplied)
Manuel Jr. further provides that for a successful prosecution of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Art. 266-A, paragraph (1) (d), the following essential elements must be alleged and proven: first, the fact of sexual congress between the rapist and his victim; and second, the victim's mental age is that of a person below twelve (12) years old.
Here, the prosecution had established both elements beyond moral certainty.
The victim's mental age is
The victim's father BBB, testified that the victim is a mental retardate. She repeated Grades 1 to 3 until she reached first year high school — her highest educational attainment. She could tell her name and age, could write, but could not read. She could also do simple household chores but not very well. 13
BBB's testimony as regard the victim's mental condition was corroborated by Dr. Imelda Escuadra (Dr. Escuadra) who, after examinations, observed that the victim is poor in conversing with people, slow in answering questions, could not read, and at the time of the examination, she was not oriented to person, place, and date. Thus, Dr. Escuadra concluded that the victim has a moderate mental retardation and the mental age of an eight (8)-year old. 14 This conclusion was reflected in the Medical Certificate (Exhibit "D") she issued. 15
Dr. Corazon D. Alipante (Dr. Alipante), a psychologist assigned at the Department of Psychiatry of the Don Suzano Memorial Hospital also evaluated the victim. After a series of examinations, she issued her Psychological Report (Exhibit "G") concurring with Dr. Escuadra's finding that the victim, despite being a twenty-three (23)-year old woman, only had an intelligence quotient of forty (40) or the mental age of an eight (8)-year old child. 16
In People v. Suansing, 17 the Court deemed the concurrent findings of two (2) doctors as sufficient evidence of the victim's mental disability, viz.:
Both the RTC and the CA also found that "AAA's" mental retardation was satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Dr. Kwong-Garcia, a psychiatrist at the Davao Medical Center, testified that the results of the IQ test conducted on "AAA" revealed that she is a mental retardate with a mental age of between 9-12 years. These findings are contained in a Medical Certificate dated December 11, 2002. These findings were corroborated by the Psychological Assessment Report of Castro, a psychologist at the Davao Medical Center, whose examination showed that the intellectual capacity of "AAA" is between 9-12 years old. These pieces of evidence prove beyond doubt that "AAA" is a mental retardate. Notably, the defense did not even impugn "AAA's" mental retardation. On the contrary, records show that even appellant himself conceded that "AAA" is a mental retardate. We therefore agree with the RTC's ruling, as affirmed by the CA, that "AAA'" is mentally retarded.
Thus, the findings and conclusions of Dr. Escuadra and Dr. Alipante here are considered conclusive proof of the victim's mental condition.
Carnal knowledge or sexual
The victim positively identified appellants as two (2) of the men who had carnal knowledge of her on three (3) separate occasions each, thus:
• Criminal Case No. IR-7702 against Gerardo
Q: In the month of January 2003, at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening do you recall (having) met Gerardo "Pisok" Requiro?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where did you see him?
A: In our house sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When he entered your house, what happened next?
A: He undressed me, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What else happened after you were undressed by Gerardo "Pisok" Requiro?
A: After he undressed me, he had sexual intercourse with me, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT
THE COURT:
Q: When you said that accused, Gerardo Requiro had sexual intercourse with you in the month of January 2003, what d[id] you mean by that?
THE WITNESS:
A: He made me lie down.
Q: After that what happened?
A: I cannot recall anymore because of the time that lapsed.
Q: Did you see his penis?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What did he do with his penis?
A: I do not know anymore, Your Honor.
Q: What happened to your vagina during that time?
A: He inserted his penis to my vagina. 18
• Criminal Case No. IR-7708 against Victor
Q: After Joemar, the following morning, what happened also?
A: Victor Requiro sexually assaulted me.
Q: Kindly identify Victor Requiro
A: (The witness pointed to a man whom she later identified as "Victor Requiro["].)
Q: You said you had sexual intercourse with Victor Requiro. What happened during that day?
A: Victor Requiro had sexual intercourse with me also.
Q: Before that sexual intercourse, what happened first?
A: I was doing laundry.
Q: How come that this Victor Requiro had sexual intercourse with you?
A: He undressed me.
Q: Did you react?
A: I cried. 19
xxx xxx xxx
The victim testified further that Victor inserted his penis into her vagina and she felt pain. 20
As regards Criminal Case Nos. IR-7703 and IR-7704 against Gerardo and Criminal Case Nos. IR-7709 and IR-7710 against Victor, the victim testified that these two (2) men separately visited her two (2) more times each in her home in the years 2004 and 2005 and had sexual intercourse with her. In all instances, each one of Gerardo and Victor inserted their penis in her vagina. 21
The testimony that each one of Gerardo and Victor, on three (3) separate occasions, inserted their penis in her vagina was corroborated by the findings of Dr. Raoul Alcantara (Dr. Alcantara) who found healed lacerations in her hymen. Dr. Alcantara also found that Susan's hymenal orifice already has diameter of three (3) centimeters which would allow complete penetration of an average size Filipino male organ in full erection. 22
It is well settled that the nature of the crime of rape often entails reliance on the lone uncorroborated testimony of the victim, which is sufficient to support a conviction, provided it is clear, convincing, and consistent with human nature. 23 Certainly, as to the credibility of witnesses, the Court will generally not disturb the trial court's factual findings, especially when they carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals, as in this case. For the trial court indeed is in a better position to decide the questions of credibility as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and the manner by which they testified during the trial.
Too, the Court has repeatedly held that competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably 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. The basic rule is that when a victim's testimony is credible and sufficiently establishes the elements of the crime, it may be enough basis to convict an accused of rape. 24
As both the trial court and the Court of Appeals here keenly noted, the testimony of the victim was credible, categorical, and straightforward, on how appellants separately came into her house and had carnal knowledge of her on three (3) separate occasions each. She was consistent and coherent in her answers and positively identified appellants as two (2) of the persons who sexually violated her. The Court has often held that a victim's credible testimony is in fact sufficient to support the verdict of conviction. 25
On the alleged delay in reporting the incidents, People v. Bejim26 instructs that silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape, or any crimes against chastity for that matter, have not always been construed as indications of a false accusation. The charge becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. 27
Notably, in prosecutions for rape under paragraph (1) (d) of Article 266-A, force, threat, or intimidation is not required, what is required is that the victim was twelve (12) years old and below, deprived of reason, demented, or that the victim's mental age is that of a person below twelve (12) years old.
In People v. Deniega, 28 the Court emphasized that force, intimidation, and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the physical or mental age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years or mental condition; the victim's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil.
Against the victim's positive testimony, appellants only invoked denial. But this is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness pointing to them as the authors of the crime. 29
All told, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the verdict of conviction against appellants for three (3) counts of rape each.
Statutory Rape
In People v. Manuel, Jr.30 the Court ruled that sexual intercourse with a mental retardate whose mental age is below twelve (12) years old constitutes statutory rape, viz.:
In the 2017 cases of People v. Deniega and People v. Niebres, however, the Court held that sexual intercourse with a mental retardate whose mental age is below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Following these developments, it is clear that as regards rape of a mental retardate, the Court now holds that, following People v. Quintos, when the victim is a mental retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12 years old, the rape should be classified as statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the RPC, as amended.
Thus, the proper designation of the crime committed here is statutory rape, and not simple rape.
Penalty
We affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on appellants pursuant to Article 266-B 31 of the RPC.
As for damages, in accordance with People v. Jugueta, 32 we also affirm the awards of: a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 10, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10185 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
1. In each of Criminal Case Nos. IR-7702, IR-7703, and IR-7704, Gerardo Requiro is found GUILTY of Statutory Rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In each of these cases, he is further ordered to PAY AAA the following amounts:
(a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
(b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and
(c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
2. In each of Criminal Case Nos. IR-7708, IR-7709, and IR-7710, Victor Requiro is found GUILTY of Statutory Rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In each of these cases, he is further ordered to PAY AAA the following amounts:
(a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
(b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and
(c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 115-127.
2. 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 Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
3. CA rollo, p. 122.
4.Id. at 123-124.
5. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, approved on September 3, 1997.
6. CA rollo, p. 219.
7.Id. at 220.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 220-221.
10.Id. at 221.
11.Id. at 221-222.
12. G.R. No. 247976, May 14, 2021, citing People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020.
13. CA rollo, p. 134.
14.Id. at 135.
15.Id. at 181.
16.Id. at 135.
17. 717 Phil. 100, 111 (2013).
18. CA rollo, pp. 132-133 and 177-178.
19.Id. at 178-179.
20.Id. at 133.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 134.
23. See People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 649-650 (2017).
24. See People v. Deniega, 811 Phil. 712, 724-725 (2017).
25. See People v. Agalot, 826 Phil. 541, 555 (2018).
26. See 824 Phil. 10, 22 (2018).
27. Also see People v. YYY, G.R. No. 234825, September 5, 2018.
28. See supra note 25 at 721.
29. See People v. Batalla, G.R. No. 234323, January 7, 2019.
30. G.R. No. 247976, May 14, 2021, citing People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020.
31. Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
32. 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).