SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255957. February 28, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 February 2022 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 255957 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal 2 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision 3 dated September 7, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01686-MIN, for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant XXX of three (3) counts of Simple Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 4
'For a charge of Rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 to prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision, e.g., through force, threat or intimidation. The gravamen of Rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will.' 5
In this case, the Court concurs with the findings of the courts a quo that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on September 9, 15, and 22, of 2002, XXX had carnal knowledge through force and intimidation of private complainant, ZZZ, who was then a 21-year old mental retardate with a mental age of a five-to-seven-year old. 6 ZZZ's positive detailing of the incidents of defilement, identification of XXX as the abuser, consistency during cross-examination, and the medical findings showing rape all indicate the truthfulness of her account. 7 Thus, there being no indication that the courts a quo overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. 8
However, there is a need to modify the classification of the Simple Rape committed against ZZZ and the resultant damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 9 As ZZZ had a mental age of a five-to-seven-year-old when the incidents of rape occurred, XXX should be convicted of the crime of Simple Rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the RPC, as amended, instead of under sub-section (b). The Court has held that where 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 (1) (d). 10 Further, in line with People v. Tulagan, 11 the Court adjusts the award of damages due to ZZZ to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape, all with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality of this Decision until full payment. Finally, pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 12 the Court hereby deletes the phrase 'without eligibility for parole' in the penalty to be imposed on XXX.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated September 7, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01686-MIN and AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION said Decision finding accused-appellant XXX GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of Simple Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 266-A (1) (d) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay ZZZ the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of Simple Rape, all with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The identities of the victim and accused-appellant or any information which could establish or compromise their identity, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, entitled 'AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' approved on June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled 'AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the 'Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children' (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled 'PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES,' dated September 5, 2017.).
2. See Notice of Appeal dated October 13, 2020; rollo, pp. 13-14.
3.Id. at 5-12. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Lily V. Bilon and Richard D. Mordeno, concurring.
4. Entitled 'AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAW,' approved on December 8, 1930.
5.People v. Ejercito, 834 Phil. 837, 844 (2018), citing People v. Bagamano, 793 Phil. 602, 608 (2016).
6. CA Rollo, pp. 55-56.
7.Rollo, p. 10.
8. See Cahulogan v. People, 828 Phil. 742, 749 (2018), citing Peralta v. People, 817 Phil. 554, 563 (2017), further citing People v. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 293 (2015).
9. See People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
10. See People v. Castillo y De Vera, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020, citing People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 829-831 (2014).
11. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848-849 (2016).
12. Entitled 'GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPER USE OF THE PHRASE 'WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE' IN INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES,' (August 4, 2015).