Mental Incapacity Cases

1 MENTAL INCAPACITY
G.R. No. L-39087 April 27, 1984 has often seen her left alone in the house (p. 20, tsn.,
March 21, 1974; pp. 38, 47, 49, tsn., April 25, 1974).
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of Jan. 3, 1974,
ROGELIO DE JESUS y QUIZON, alias "ELIONG," accused-appellant. Pastora Simon went out to the field in order to plant palay,
leaving her daughter Clara Mina alone in the house. Her
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. husband (Clara's father), had gone to a place called
Soliven four days before, while the other members of the
household had also left for the field (pp. 17, 18, 19, tsn.,
Rafael D. Abierra Jr. for accused-appellant. March 21, 1974).
That afternoon, Clara Mina was seated on top of a trunk

when Rogelio de Jesus suddenly entered the house,
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1 carried her in his arms and laid her on the floor (pp. 8, 13,
tsn., March 21, 1974). Objecting to what was being done
The accused, Rogelio de Jesus y Quizon appeals from the decision of the to her, Clara gave an outcry "Madi! Madi!" (which
Circuit Criminal Court, First Judicial District in its Criminal Case No. CCC-1- translated means "I don't like! I don't like!") Rogelio,
80, Isabela (II-329) finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime ignoring her cries, removed her panties as well as his own
of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335, paragraph 2 of the trousers. He lay on top of her, inserted his penis into her
Revised Penal Code and sentencing him, after appreciating in his favor the vagina and performed the sexual act (pp. 7, 8, 9, 13,14,
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, to suffer the penalty 15, tsn., Id.).
of reclusion perpetua to indemnify the offended party Clara Mina y Simon in
the amount of P10,000.00 plus another P5,000.00 as moral and exemplary Meanwhile, Pastora Simon, who had already walked some
damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay 150 meters away from their house, when sensing it was
the costs. about to rain, hurried back to the house to get cellophane
with which to shield her from the rain (p. 17, tsn., March
The facts are as follows: têñ.£îhqwâ£ 21, 1974). Upon her return to the house, she found
Rogelio de Jesus naked lying on top of Clara Mina whose
legs were spread apart (p. 19, tsn., Id.). Seeing them in
Clara Mina, an unmarried woman of 28, lived with her that position, she rushed to the kitchen to get a club but
parents in barrio Amistad, Alicia, Isabela (p. 7, tsn., March Rogelio spotted her and ran away. (p. 20, tsn., Id.).
21, 1974).
The barrio captain, Glicerio Guzman, to whom Pastora
Clara Mina, however, is feeble-minded. She is unable to Simon had immediately reported the incident, looked for
comb her hair, bathe herself and wash her clothes (pp. 21, Rogelio but failed to locate him (p. 20, tsn., March 21,
31, 32, tsn., March 21, 1974). Because of her mental 1974; pp. 10, 20, tsn., March 22, 1974).
condition, she just stayed in the house, doing no
household chores (p. 31, tsn., Id.).
Returning from the barrio captain's house, Pastora Simon
investigated Clara, who revealed to her that she was
The accused, Rogelio de Jesus, a 19-year old farmer, who carried away from the trunk where she was seated, then
lived in the house of his sister some 15 meters away from forcibly laid on the floor to have sexual intercourse with
the victim's house, knew of Clara's mental infirmity, and Rogelio (pp. 20, 21, tsn., March 21, 1974).
2 MENTAL INCAPACITY
The next day — January 4, 1974 — Clara Mina, While the affidavit executed by the accused is not admissible in evidence for
accompanied by her parents, denounced Rogelio de lack of evidence showing that the accused during the custodial investigation
Jesus to the police authorities (p. 20, tsn., March 22, was apprised of his constitutional rights under Art. IV, Sec. 20, of the New
1974). Clara Mina was examined by Fernando Babaran, Constitution, 2 still there is sufficient evidence on record that the accused
Municipal Health Officer of Echague, lsabela at the had performed the sexual act to wit: têñ.£îhqwâ£
Southern Isabela Emergency Hospital, the municipal
health officer of Alicia being then on leave (p. 6, tsn., 1. The accused testified that he merely inserted his
March 22, 1974). The medical certificate, Exhibit "C", forefinger into the complainant's vagina to cure her of her
issued by Dr. Babaran, shows the following findings: mental malady. The records, however show, from the
testimony of both the prosecution and the defense, that
(1) hymenal lacerations at 3 o'clock, 8 o'clock and 11 the accused laid on top of complainant. If appellant's
o'clock. purpose was merely to insert his forefinger into the
complainant's vagina, then there is no necessity of lying
(2) vagina admits one finger with ease. Two fingers with on top of complainant.
difficulty.
2. Complainant testified, contrary to the testimony of the
(3) fresh perineal abrasion. accused, that the latter brought out his penis and inserted
it into her vagina which pained her a lot.
(4) smear, not done due to lack of microscope.
3. The hymenal lacerations and the fresh perineal
abrasions in complainant's vagina corroborated her
(5) contusion — left temporal area. Lesions to heal within testimony that the accused had sexual intercourse with
one week. (p. 3, Record). her.
According to Dr. Babaran, the abrasions were possibly The accused assailed the competence of the complainant as a witness on
inflicted the day prior to the examination and that the the ground that being feeble minded she is not a competent witness in
contusion on the left temporal area of the girl's head could contemplation of the rules and therefore her testimony should have been
have been caused when her head was pushed against a rejected by the lower court. That the complainant was feeble-minded and
hard object (pp. 11, 12, tsn., March 22, 1974). had displayed difficulty in comprehending the questions propounded on her
is an undisputed fact. However, there is no showing that she could not
Subsequently, Rogelio de Jesus was surrendered by his convey her Ideas by words or signs. It appears in the records that
brother-in-law, a councilor to the Alicia Police Department. complainant gave sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions
He executed an affidavit, Exhibit "D" subscribed before propounded by the court and the counsels. The court is satisfied that the
Alicia Municipal Judge Flor Egipto on January 5, 1974, complainant can perceive and transmit in her own way her own perceptions
admitting that he had sexual intercourse once with Clara to others. She is a competent witness.
Mina, but denying that he raped her (p. 7, record).
Having sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded woman is rape. The offense
The accused denied that he had forced the complainant to have sexual is described under paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
intercourse with him and that he only inserted his forefinger inside the that is, the offender having carnal knowledge of a woman deprived of
complainant's private parts. He testified that he admitted having sexual reason. The Court, in the case of People vs. Daing, 3 said:
intercourse once with complainant in his affidavit 1 because of maltreatment
employed upon him by the jail guards. The offense committed by appellant is rape described under paragraph 2 of
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, that is, the offender having carnal
3 MENTAL INCAPACITY
knowledge of a woman deprived of reason. The deprivation of reason

contemplated by law does not need to be complete. Mental abnormality or
deficiency is enough. So it was held by the Supreme Court of Spain that a
man having carnal knowledge of a woman whose mental faculties are not
normally developed or who is suffering from hemiplegia and mentally
backward or who is an Idiot commits the crime of rape. ...
Being feeble-minded, complainant is incapable of thinking and reasoning like

any normal human being and not being able to think and reason from birth
as aforesaid, and undoubtedly devoid or deficient in those instincts and other
mental faculties that characterize the average and normal mortal, she really
has no will that is free and voluntary of her own; hers is a defective will,
which is incapable of freely and voluntarily giving such consent so necessary
and essential in lifting coitus from the place of criminality. 4 In this
connection, the Solicitor General properly stated: têñ.£îhqwâ£
That complainant possesses such a low mental capacity,

to the extent of being incapable of giving consent, could
be gleaned from the fact, as testified to by her mother, that
she is unable to do the simple tasks of combing her hair
and bathing herself. Thus, even granting it to be true, as
counsel has insinuated, that complainant had submitted to
the sexual act without resistance (p. 9 Appellant's Brief)
such cannot be construed as consent on her part, so as to
preclude it from being rape. Incapable of giving consent,
she could not thus consent in intelligently. 5
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and

Escolin, JJ., concur.
4 MENTAL INCAPACITY
5 MENTAL INCAPACITY
G.R. No. L-54135 November 21, 1991 pointed to the throat of the complainant threatening her with said
bolo should she resist. Then, he forced her to lie down on a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, bamboo bed, removed her pants and after unfastening the zipper of
vs. his own pants, went on top of complainant and succeeded having
POLICARPIO RAFANAN, JR., defendant-appellant. carnal knowledge of her inspite of her resistance and struggle. After
the sexual intercourse, the accused cautioned the complainant not
to report the matter to her mother or anybody in the house,
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. otherwise he would kill her.
Causapin, Millar & Tutana Law Office for defendant-appellant.
Because of fear, the complainant did not immediately report the
matter and did not leave the house of the accused that same
evening. In fact, she slept in the house of the accused that evening
and the following morning she scrubbed the floor and did her daily
routine work in the house. She only left the house in the evening of
FELICIANO, J.: March 17, 1976.
Policarpio Rafanan, Jr. appeals from a decision of the then Court of First Somehow, in the evening of March 17, 1976, the family of the
Instance of Pangasinan convicting him of the crime of rape and sentencing accused learned what happened the night before in the store
him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify complainant Estelita Ronaya in the between Policarpio and Estelita and a quarrel ensued among them
amount of P10,000.00 by way of moral damages, and to pay the costs. prompting Estelita Ronaya to go back to her house. When Estelita's
mother confronted her and asked her why she went home that
evening, the complainant could not answer but cried and cried. It
The facts were summarized by the trial court in the following manner: was only the following morning on March 18, 1976 that the
complainant told her mother that she was raped by the accused.
The prosecution's evidence shows that on February 27, 1976, Upon knowing what happened to her daughter, the mother
complainant Estelita Ronaya who was then only fourteen years old Alejandra Ronaya, immediately accompanied her to the house of
was hired as a househelper by the mother of the accused, Ines Patrolman Bernardo Mairina of the Villasis Police Force who lives in
Rafanan alias "Baket Ines" with a salary of P30.00 a month. Barrio San Nicolas, Villasis, Pangasinan. Patrolman Mairina is a
cousin of the father of the complainant. He advised them to
The accused Policarpio Rafanan and his family lived with his proceed to the municipal building while he went to fetch the
mother in the same house at Barangay San Nicholas, Villasis, accused. The accused was later brought to the police headquarter
Pangasinan. Policarpio was then married and had two children. with the bolo, Exhibit "E", which the accused allegedly used in
threatening the complainant. 1
On March 16, 1976, in the evening, after dinner, Estelita Ronaya

was sent by the mother of the accused to help in their store which
was located in front of their house about six (6) meters away.
Attending to the store at the time was the accused. At 11:00 o'clock At arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. The case then proceeded to trial and in due course of time, the trial court, as
in the evening, the accused called the complainant to help him already noted, convicted the appellant.
close the door of the store and as the latter complied and went near
him, he suddenly pulled the complainant inside the store and said, The instant appeal is anchored on the following:
"Come, let us have sexual intercourse," to which Estelita replied, "I
do not like," and struggled to free herself and cried. The accused
held a bolo measuring 1-1/2 feet including the handle which he
6 MENTAL INCAPACITY
Q Now, we go back to that time when according to you the accused pulled you from the door and brought you inside
the store after you helped him closed the store. Now, after the accused pulled you from the door and brought you
inside the store what happened then?
Assignment of Errors
A "You come and we will have sexual intercourse," he said.

1. The lower court erred in basing its decision of conviction of appellant solely on the testimony of the complainant
and her mother.

Q And what did you say?
2. The lower court erred in considering the hearsay evidence for the prosecution, "Exhibits B and C".
A "I do not like," I said.
3. The lower court erred in not believing the testimony of the expert witnesses, as to the mental condition of the
Q And what did you do, if any, when you said you do not like to have sexual intercourse with him?
accused-appellant at the time of the alleged commission of the crime of rape.
A I struggled and cried.
Q What did the accused do after that?

4. The lower court erred in convicting appellant who at the time of the alleged rape was suffering from insanity. 2
A He got a knife and pointed it at my throat so I was frightened and he could do what he wanted to do. He was able
to do what he wanted to do.
Appellant first assails the credibility of complainant as well as of her mother whose testimonies he contends are contradictory. It is Q This "kutsilyo" you were referring to or knife, how big is that knife? Will you please demonstrate, if any?
claimed by appellant that the testimony of complainant on direct examination that she immediately went home after the rape incident,
is at variance with her testimony on cross examination to the effect that she had stayed in the house of appellant until the following
A This length, sir. (Which parties agreed to be about one and one-half [1-1/2] feet long.)
day. Complainant, in saying that she left the house of appellant by herself, is also alleged to have contradicted her mother who
stated that she (the mother) went to the store in the evening of 17 March 1979 and brought Estelita home.
x x x x x x x x x
Fiscal Guillermo:
The apparently inconsistent statements made by complainant were clarified by her on cross examination. In any case, the
Q Now, you said that the accused was able to have sexual intercourse with you after he placed the bolo or that knife
inconsistencies related to minor and inconsequential details which do not touch upon the manner in which the crime had been
[at] your throat. Now, will you please tell the court what did the accused do immediately after placing that bolo your
committed and therefore did not in any way impair the credibility of the complainant. 3
throat and before having sexual intercourse you?
A He had sexual intercourse with me.
The commission of the came was not seriously disputed by appellant. The testimony of complainant in this respect is clear and Q What was your wearing apparel that evening?
convincing:
A I was wearing pants, sir.

Fiscal Guillermo:
Q Aside from the pants, do you have any underwear?

7 MENTAL INCAPACITY
A Yes, sir, I have a panty.
Q Now, before the accused have sexual intercourse with you what, if any, did he do with respect to your pants and
your panty?
COURT:
A He removed them, sir.

Alright, what do you mean by he was able to succeed in what he wanted to get?
Q Now, while he was removing your pants and your panty what, if any, did you do?
Fiscal Guillermo:
A I continued to struggle so that he could not remove my pants but he was stronger that's why he succeeded.
Considering the condition of the witness, your honor, with tears, may we just be allowed to ask a leading question
which is a follow-up question?
Q Now, after he had removed your panty and your pants or pantsuit what else happened?
Witness:
A He went on top of me, sir.
A He inserted his private part inside my vagina.

Q At the time what was the accused wearing by way of apparel?
Fiscal Guillermo:
A He was wearing pants.
Q Now, when he inserted his private part inside your vagina what did you feel, if any?
Q When you said he went on top of you after he has removed your pantsuit and your panty, was he still wearing his
pants?
A I felt something that came out from his inside.
A He unbuttoned his pants and unfastened the zipper of his pants.

Q Now, how long, if you remember, did the accused have his penis inside your vagina:?
Q And after he unbuttoned and unfastened his pants what did you see which he opened?
A Around five minutes maybe, sir.
A I saw his penis.

Q After that what happened then?
Q Now, you said that after the accused has unzipped his pants and brought out his penis which you saw, he went on
A He removed it.
top of you. When he was already on top of you what did you do, if any?
Q After the accused has removed his penis from your vagina what else happened?
A I struggled.
A No more, sir, he sat down.

Q Now, you said that you struggled. What happened then when you struggled against the accused when he was on
top of you?
Q What, if any, did he tell you?
A Since he was stronger, he succeeded doing what he wanted to get.

A There was, sir. He told me not to report the matter to my
x x x x x x x x x
8 MENTAL INCAPACITY
mother and to anybody in their house. In view of the foregoing examinations and observations, Policarpio Rafanan, Jr. y Gambawa is found suffering from a
mental disorder called schizophrenia, manifested by carelessness in grooming, sluggishness in movements, staring
vacuously, indifferen[ce], smiling inappropriately, refusal to verbalize, emotional dullness, mental inaccessibility,
Q What else did he tell you?
seclusiveness, preoccupation, disorientation, and perceptual aberrations of hearing strange sounds. He is psychotic
or insane, hence cannot stand court trial. He needs further hospitalization and treatment. 5
A He told me that if I told anyone what happened, he will kill me.
Q After that where did you go?
The second report, dated 21 June 1977, contained the following description of appellant's mental condition:
At present he is still seclusive, undertalkative and retarded in his reponses. There is dullness of his affect and he
A I went home already, sir. 4
appeared preoccupied. He is observed to mumble alone by himself and would show periods of being irritable saying
— "oki naman" with nobody in particular. He claim he does not know whether or not he was placed in jail and does
not know if he has a case in court. Said he does not remember having committed any wrong act
and the following conclusions:

The principal submission of appellant is that he was suffering from a metal aberration characterized as schizophrenia when he
inflicted his violent intentions upon Estelita. At the urging of his counsel, the trial court suspended the trial and ordered appellant
confined at the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong for observation and treatment. In the meantime, the case was archived.
Appellant was admitted into the hospital on 29 December 1976 and stayed there until 26 June 1978.
During his confinement, the hospital prepared four (4) clinical reports on the mental and physical condition of the appellant, all signed
In view of the foregoing examinations and observations Policarpio Rafanan, Jr. y Gambawa is at present time still
by Dr. Simplicio N. Masikip and Dr. Arturo E. Nerit, physician-in-charge and chief, Forensic Psychiatry Service, respectively.
psychotic or insane, manifested by periods of irritability — cursing nobody in particular, seclusive, underactive,
undertalkative, retarded in his response, dullness of his affect, mumbles alone by himself, preoccupied and lack of
In the first report dated 27 January 1977, the following observations concerning appellant's mental condition were set forth: insight.
On admission he was sluggish in movements, indifferent to interview, would just look up whenever questioned but
refused to answer.
He is not yet in a condition to stand court trial. He needs further hospitalization and treatment. 6
On subsequent examinations and observations he was carelessly attired, with dishevelled hair, would stare
vacuously through the window, or look at people around him. He was indifferent and when questioned, he would just
smile inappropriately. He refused to verbalize, even when persuaded, and was emotionally dull and mentally In the third report, dated 5 October 1977, appellant was described as having become "better behaved, responsive" and "neat in
inaccessible. He is generally seclusive, at times would pace the floor, seemingly in deep thought. Later on when person," and "adequate in his emotional tone, in touch with his surroundings and . . . free from hallucinatory experiences." During the
questioned his frequent answers are "Aywan ko, hindi ko alam." His affect is dull, he claimed to hear strange voices preceding period, appellant had been allowed to leave the hospital temporarily; he stayed with a relative in Manila while coming
"parang ibon, tinig ng ibon," but cannot elaborate. He is disoriented to 3 spheres and has no idea why he was periodically to the hospital for check-ups. During this period, he was said to have been helpful in the doing of household chores,
brought here. conversed and as freely with other members of the household and slept well, although, occasionally, appellant smiled while alone.
Appellant complained that at times he heard voices of small children, talking in a language he could not understand. The report
concluded by saying that while appellant had improved in his mental condition, he was not yet in a position to stand trial since he
The report then concluded:
needed further treatment, medication and check-ups. 7
9 MENTAL INCAPACITY
In the last report dated 26 June 1978, appellant was described as behaved, helpful in household chores and no longer talking while
April 29, 1916; 96 Jur. Crim. 239) or that there be a total
alone. He was said to be "fairly groomed" and "oriented" and as denying having hallucinations. The report concluded that he was in a
deprivation of freedom of the will. (Decision of the Supreme Court
"much improved condition" and "in a mental condition to stand court trial." 8
of Spain of April 9, 1872; 6 Jur. Crim. 239) For this reason, it was
held that the imbecility or insanity at the time of the commission of
Trial of the case thus resumed. The defense first presented Dr. Arturo Nerit who suggested that appellant was sick one or two years the act should absolutely deprive a person of intelligence or
before his admission into the hospital, in effect implying that appellant was already suffering from schizophrenia when he raped freedom of will, because mere abnormality of his mental faculties
complainant. 9
The defense next presented Raquel Jovellano, a psychiatrist does not exclude imputability. (Decision of the Supreme Court of
engaged in private practice, who testified that she had examined and treated Spain of April 20, 1911; 86 Jur. Crim. 94, 97.)
the appellant.
The Supreme Court of Spain likewise held that deaf-muteness
Appellant's plea of insanity rests on Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be [equated with] imbecility or insanity.
which provides:
The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved.
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — Without positive evidence that the defendant had previously lost his
reason or was demented, a few moments prior to or during the
perpetration of the crime, it will be presumed that he was in a
The following are exempt from criminal liability: normal condition. Acts penalized by law are always reputed to be
voluntary, and it is improper to conclude that a person acted
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted unconsciously, in order to relieve him from liability, on the basis of
during a lucid interval. his mental condition, unless his insanity and absence of will are
proved. (Emphasis supplied.)
Where the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act
which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his The standards set out in Formigones were commonly adopted in subsequent
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for cases. 11 A linguistic or grammatical analysis of those standards suggests
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave that Formigones established two (2) distinguishable tests: (a) the test of
without first obtaining the permission of the same court. cognition — "complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the [criminal]
act," and (b) the test of volition — "or that there be a total deprivation
x x x x x x x x x freedom of the will." But our caselaw shows common reliance on the test of
cognition, rather than on a test relating to "freedom of the will;" examination
of our caselaw has failed to turn up any case where this Court has exempted
Although the Court has ruled many times in the past on the insanity defense, an accused on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of "freedom of
it was only in People vs. Formigones 10 that the Court elaborated on the the will," i.e., without an accompanying "complete deprivation of
required standards of legal insanity, quoting extensively from the intelligence." This is perhaps to be expected since a person's volition
Commentaries of Judge Guillermo Guevara on the Revised Penal Code, naturally reaches out only towards that which is presented as desirable by
thus: his intelligence, whether that intelligence be diseased or healthy. In any
case, where the accused failed to show complete impairment or loss of
The Supreme Court of Spain held that in order that this exempting intelligence, the Court has recognized at most a mitigating, not an
circumstance may be taken into account, it is necessary that there exempting, circumstance in accord with Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal
be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that Code: "Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-
is, that the accused be deprived of reason; that there be no power of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of
responsibility for his own acts; that he acts without the least his acts." 12
discernment; (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of November
21, 1891; 47 Jur. Crim. 413.) that there be a complete absence of
the power to discern, (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of
10 MENTAL INCAPACITY
Schizophrenia pleaded by appellant has been described as a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish
the voices address the patient, comment on what he is doing and
between fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. Formerly called dementia praecox, it is said to
what is going on around him, or are threatening or obscene and
be the most common form of psychosis an usually develops between the ages 15 and 30. 13
A standard textbook in very disturbing to the patient. Many schizophrenic patients
psychiatry describes some of the symptoms of schizophrenia in the following experience the hearing of their own thoughts. When they are
manner: reading silently, for example, they may be quite disturbed by
hearing every word they are reading clearly spoken to them.
Eugen Bleuler later described three general primary symptoms of
schizophrenia: a disturbance of association, a disturbance of affect, Visual hallucinations occur less frequently than auditory
and a disturbance of activity. Bleuler also stressed the dereistic hallucinations in schizophrenic patients, but they are not rare.
attitude of the schizophrenic — that is, his detachment from reality Patients suffering from organic of affective psychoses experience
and consequent autism and the ambivalence that expresses itself visual hallucinations primarily at night or during limited periods of
in his uncertain affectivity and initiative. Thus, Bleuler's system of the day, but schizophrenic patients hallucinate as much during the
schizophrenia is often referred to as the four A's: association, day as they do during the night, sometimes almost continuously.
affect, autism, and ambivalence. They get relief only in sleep. When visual occur in schizophrenia,
they are usually seen nearby, clearly defined, in color, life size, in
x x x x x x x x x three dimensions, and moving. Visual hallucinations almost never
in one of the other sensory modalities.
Kurt Schneider described a number of first-rank symptoms of
schizophrenia that he considered in no way specific for the disease x x x x x x x x x
but of great pragmatic value in making a diagnosis. Schneider's
first-rank symptoms include the hearing of one's thoughts spoken Cognitive Disorders
aloud, auditory hallucinations that comment on the patient's
behavior, somatic hallucinations, the experience of having one's Delusions. By definition, delusions are false ideas that cannot be
thoughts controlled, the spreading of one's thoughts to others, corrected by reasoning, and that are idiosyncratic for the patient —
delusions, and the experience of having one's actions controlled or that is, not part of his cultural environment. They are among the
influenced from the outside. common symptoms of schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia, Schneider pointed out, also can be diagnosed Most frequent are delusions of persecution, which are the key
exclusively on the basis of second-rank symptoms, along with an symptom in the paranoid type of schizophrenia. The conviction of
otherwise typical clinical appearances. Second-rank symptoms being controlled by some unseen mysterious power that exercises
include other forms of hallucination, perplexity, depressive and its influence from a distance is almost pathognomonic for
euphoric disorders of affect, and emotional blunting. schizophrenia. It occurs in most, if not all, schizophrenics at one
time or another, and for many it is a daily experience. The modern
Perceptual Disorders schizophrenic whose delusions have kept up with the scientific
times may be preoccupied with atomic power, X-rays, or
Various perceptual disorders occur in schizophrenia . . . . spaceships that take control over his mind and body. Also typical
for
many schizophrenics are delusional fantasies about the destruction
Hallucinations. Sensory experiences or perceptions without of the world. 14
corresponding external stimuli are common symptoms of
schizophrenia. Most common are auditory hallucinations, or the In previous cases where schizophrenia was interposed as an exempting circumtance, 15
hearing of voices. Most characteristically, two or more voices talk it has mostly been
about the patient, discussing him in the third person. Frequently, rejected by the Court. In each of these cases, the evidence presented
tended to show that if there was impairment of the mental faculties, such
impairment was not so complete as to deprive the accused of intelligence or Q Would you say that those acts of a person no matter whether he
the consciousness of his acts. is schizophrenic which you said, it deals (sic) some kind of
intelligence and consciousness of some acts that is committed?
The facts of the instant case exhibit much the same situation. Dr. Jovellano
declared as follows: A Yes, it involves the consciousness because the consciousness
there in relation to the act is what we call primitive acts of any
(Fiscal Guillermo:) individual. The difference only in the act of an insane and a normal
individual, a normal individual will use the power of reasoning and
consciousness within the standard of society while an insane
Q Now, this condition of the accused schizophrenic as you found causes (sic) already devoid of the fact that he could no longer
him, would you say doctor that he was completely devoid of any withstand himself in the ordinary environment, yet his acts are
consciousness of whatever he did in connection with the incident in within the bound of insanity or psychosis.
this case?
Q Now, Doctor, of course this person suffering that ailment which
A He is not completely devoid of consciousness. you said the accused here is suffering is capable of planning the
commission of a rape?
Q Would you say doctor, therefore, that he was conscious of
threatening the victim at the time of the commission of the alleged A Yes, they are also capable.
rape?
Q He is capable of laying in wait in order to assault?
A Yes, he was conscious.
A Yes.
Q And he was conscious of forcing the victim to lie down?
Q And would you say that condition that ability of a person to plan a
A Yes. rape and to perform all the acts preparatory to the actual
intercourse could be done by an insane person?
Q And he was also conscious of removing the panty of the victim at
the time? A Yes, it could be done.
A Yes. Q Now, you are talking of insanity in its broadest sense, is it not?
Q And he was also conscious and knows that the victim has a A Yes, sir.
vagina upon which he will place his penis?
Q Now, is this insane person also capable of knowing what is right
A Yeah. and what is wrong?
Q And he was conscious enough to be competent and have an A Well, there is no weakness on that part of the individual. They
erection? may know what is wrong but yet there is no inhibition on the
individual.
A Yes.
Q Yes, but actually, they are mentally equipped with knowledge illness which diminishes the exercise of the offender's will-
that an act they are going to commit is wrong? power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
Appellant should have been credited with this mitigating circumstance,
A Yeah, they are equipped but the difference is, there is what we although it would not have affected the penalty imposable upon him under
call they lost the inhibition. The reasoning is weak and yet they Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code: "in all cases in which the law
understand but the volition is [not] there, the drive is [not] prescribes a single indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua in this case), it
there. 16 (Emphasis supplied) shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed."
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, except

that the amount of moral damages is increased to P30,000.00. Costs against
The above testimony, in substance, negates complete destruction of intelligence at the time of commission of the act charged which,
appellant.
in the current state of our caselaw, is critical if the defense of insanity is to be sustained. The fact that appellant Rafanan threatened
complainant Estelita with death should she reveal she had been sexually assaulted by him, indicates, to the mind of the Court, that
Rafanan was aware of the reprehensible moral quality of that assault. The defense sought to suggest, through Dr. Jovellano's last
Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
two (2) answers above, that person suffering from schizophrenia sustains not only impairment of the mental faculties but also
deprivation of there power self-control. We do not believe that Dr. Jovellano's testimony, by itself, sufficiently demonstrated the truth
of that proposition. In any case, as already pointed out, it is complete loss of intelligence which must be shown if the exempting
circumstance of insanity is to be found.
The law presumes every man to be sane. A person accused of a crime has the burden of proving his affirmative allegation of
insanity. 17
Here, appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence
regarding his state of mind immediately before and during the sexual assault
on Estelita. It has been held that inquiry into the mental state of the accused
should relate to the period immediately before or at the very moment the act
is committed. 18 Appellant rested his case on the testimonies of two (2)
physicians (Dr. Jovellano and Dr. Nerit) which, however, did not purport to
characterize his mental condition during that critical period of time. They did
not specifically relate to circumtances occurring on or immediately before the
day of the rape. Their testimonies consisted of broad statements based on
general behavioral patterns of people afflicted with schizophrenia. Curiously,
while it was Dr. Masikip who had actually observed and examined appellant
during his confinement at the National Mental Hospital, the defense chose to
present Dr. Nerit.
Accordingly, we must reject the insanity defense of appellant Rafanan.
In People vs. Puno (supra), the Court ruled that schizophrenic reaction,

although not exempting because it does not completely deprive the offender G.R. No. 96848 January 21, 1994
of the consciousness of his acts, may be considered as a mitigating
circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., as an
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, on the labia minora at 6:00 o'clock position. There are
vs. isolated erythematous areas on both thighs. There is also
ALEJANDRO SALOMON Y OLPANGO @ "ALE", @ "BOYET" and the presence of sandy particles on the genital area.
FELICIANO CONGE @ PEPING, accused-appellants. Speculum exam, however, showed negative findings.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Three days later, Salomon and Feliciano could no longer be found. It was
only after a four-month search that they were arrested in Aguado, Plaser,
Anecio R. Guades for accused-appellants. Masbate, from where, after being detained there for one month, they were
taken back to Samar.3 Following a protracted investigation, an information
for rape was filed against them on August 9, 1988, with the Regional Trial
Court in Calbayog City.4
CRUZ, J.: The principal witness for the prosecution was Sylvia Soria herself, who
recounted in detail the manner of her ravishment by Salomon with the help
The novel defense in this prosecution for rape is that the physical evidence of his co-accused Conge. She described how she was dragged to the
of the complainant's violation was caused not by the male organ but by the ricefield by the two accused and there undressed against her will. As Conge
five fingers of one of the appellants that were thrust into her vagina in anger spread and pinned her legs, Salomon mounted and penetrated her, although
and not lust. The defense faults the trial judge for giving credence to the with difficulty because she was still a virgin. She felt pain in her vagina and
complainant. It avers that her testimony should not have been accepted at "something slippery." She could not cry out or repel the attack because the
all because she is admittedly a mental retardate and therefore unreliable per two were stronger than she and Conge was holding a bolo.5 After her rape,
se. Salomon sucked and twisted her nipples and demanded that he suck his
penis. Her low mentality was demonstrated in her angry testimony of her
These curious arguments will not be dismissed out of hand by this Court. refusal: "The devil with him, it is not an icedrop."6
The appellants are entitled to be heard in their defense, no less than the
prosecution, although neither party is necessarily to be believed if its The prosecution presented several other witnesses, 7 including Dr. Tanseco,
evidence falls short of the strict standards of the law. who affirmed her medical certificate of the complainant's examination. On
cross-examination, she declared that the laceration in Sylvia's vagina could
The trial court found that on October 11, 1987, while Sylvia Soria, a have been caused by penetration of a blunt instrument such as an average-
20-year old mental retardate, was walking along the Maharlika Highway at sized penis.8
Casabahan, Gandara, Samar, Alejandro Salomon and Feliciano Conge, who
were apparently waiting for her, accosted her and forcibly took her to the The two accused flatly denied the charge against them. Conge swore that on
ricefield some ten meters away. There she was raped by Salomon with the night in question, Sylvia arrived at the highway and loudly demanded a
Conge's assistance. On her way home, she met her brother Senecio, to lamp from the people in Epifanio de Guzman's house. He approached her
whom she related her ordeal. The two of them reported her rape to their and said there was no lamp to spare, whereupon, as he turned his back to
father. That same night, the family walked the three-kilometer distance to the leave, she hit him in the neck with a piece of wood, causing him to stagger.
police station, where Restituto Soria signed a complaint for the rape of his In swift reaction, he caught Sylvia by the waist and pushed her to the ground
daughter by Salomon and Conge.1 Sylvia was medically examined at the and as she lay there exposed (she was not wearing any underwear), he
Gandara General Hospital by Dr. Susan Tanseco, who issued the following angrily shoved his five fingers into her vagina. Sylvia cried out at the top of
certificate:2 her voice. Fearing that her relatives might come, he withdrew his hands and
immediately left the place.9
A physical examination has been done on Miss Sylvia
Soria, 20 years of age, a resident of Brgy. Casab-ahan, Salomon corroborated his co-accused. He testified that he saw the whole
Gandara, Samar. P.E. showed a single, linear, laceration incident, being then about three-arms length away from the highway. 10 De
Guzman agreed, saying that he was also in the yard of his house at the time, was not woven out of sheer imagination but born in
and playing his guitar, when the encounter occurred. 11 anguish and remembered with pain and as plain an
unembellished as the simple life she led. If she spoke in
Both Salomon and Conge also protested that they had not gone to Masbate forthright language at the trial, it was because she was
in order to escape as the trial court held. They pointed out that they were in speaking the truth of that horrible ravishment she could
fact investigated by the police the day following the alleged incident but no not push out of her mind.
action was taken against them. 12 The truth, they said, was that they had
gone to Masbate to buy two horses on instructions from Salomon's father, In the case before us, the trial court noted that although Sylvia's speech was
Epifanio, who had given them P3,000.00 for this purpose. 13 slurred and it was necessary at times to ask her leading questions, "her
testimony was positive, clear, plain, coherent and credible." Her mental
Judge Ricardo A. Navidad disbelieved the accused and found them guilty as condition did not vitiate her credibility. We also believe, as we have observed
charged. As conspirators, they were each sentenced to reclusion often enough in many cases 18 that a woman will not expose herself to the
perpetua and held solidarily liable to the complainant for P30,000.00 as civil humiliation of a rape trail, with its attendant publicity and the morbid curiosity
indemnity, P22,000.00 as moral damages, P5,000.00 as exemplary it will arouse, unless she has been truly wronged and seeks atonement for
damages, and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees. They were also ordered to pay her abuse.
the costs. 14
The defense points to a supposed hostility between Sylvia's and Salomon's
In the appellants' brief (incorrectly denominated as a Petition for Review), respective fathers due to a conflict over a piece of land and the
the defense suggests that the testimony of Sylvia Soria is flawed because administrative charge Epifanio filed against Restituto when they were both
she is an insane person who was confined at the National Mental Hospital a teaching at the local school. It suggests that this was the reason for Sylvia's
few months before the alleged incident. 15 It is also argued that her testimony false charge against Salomon, who has simply been caught in the crossfire,
was fabricated at the instance of her father, who had a bone to pick with as it were, between Restituto and Epifanio.
Salomon's father. The appellants insist that their own version of the incident
is more plausible and should not have been rejected by the trial court in view The connection is far-fetched. It is unnatural for a parent to use his offspring
of the constitutional presumption of innocence in their favor. as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to
embarassment and even stigma, as in this case. There is no evidence that
A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a Sylvia's father is an unnatural parent. Besides, the enmity itself is in the view
witness. As in the case of other witnesses, acceptance of his testimony of the Court not deep enough to provoke the charge, assuming that Restituto
depends on its nature and credibility or, otherwise put, the quality of his Soria was willing to use his daughter to falsely accuse his enemy's son.
perceptions and the manner he can make them known to the court.16 Thus, Significantly, the complaint was filed by Restituto against the son and not the
in People v. Gerones,17 the Court accepted the testimony of a rape victim father who was his real adversary.
notwithstanding that she had the mentality of a nine or ten-year old "because
she was able to communicate her ordeal... clearly and consistently." In the The lack of a finding of spermatozoa during Sylvia's medical examination did
case of People vs. Rondina, this Court declared: not conclusively establish an absence thereof because the examining doctor
simply did not have the necessary equipment to make a more thorough
The testimony of the offended party herself was especially report. 19 In fact, she suggested another examination at the Calbayog
telling and credible despite the fact that she was General Hospital.20 At any rate, we have held that the absence of
somewhat mentally deficient, as the trial court noticed. spermatozoa in the complainant's vagina does not negate the commission of
Although she was really of limited intelligence, the rape; there may be a valid explanation for such absence, as when the
complainant nevertheless did not forget the harrowing semen may have been washed away or when the rapist failed to ejaculate.21
experience she suffered during that frightful night in the
bushes when the three men seared her memory with the The appellants decry the trial judge's conclusion that they had gone to
lust they forced upon her. The tale she narrated in court Masbate to escape, but it appears that this was really their intention. In the
first place, it is not true that they were investigated before they left, for the function of the judge presiding at the trial. We defer to the findings of the trial
fact is Salomon's father stopped the investigation on the ground that there court in the case at bar, there being no showing that they were reached
was no lawyer to represent them.22 It is also noted that Salomon used without basis.
another name in Masbate and called himself Boyet instead of Ale, his real
nickname.23 Salomon and Conge traveled from place to place in that The Court cannot conclude this opinion without remarking on the
province but were not able to buy a single horse during the four months that extraordinary lengths to which an accused will go to falsify the truth and
they were there. Instead, they used the P3,000.00 Salomon's father had evade the sanctions of the law. The defense in this case is illustrative of
given them not only for their daily needs but also "in dancing and drinking," such desperation. What the appellants have not considered is that the Court
as Conge put it.24 Well indeed has it been said that "wicked flee when no is not without experience in detecting falsehood and should not have been
man pursueth but the innocent are as bold as a lion." The appellants' trip to expected to be deluded by the ridiculous story they blandly submitted.
Masbate was unmistakably a flight from justice. Counsel should remember that gullibility is not one of the traits of this Court.
And now let us consider the interesting defense of what we may call Sylvia's WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of the trial court is
"manual rape" for lack of a more descriptive term. Admitting the laceration in AFFIRMED, except for the award of moral, exemplary, and actual damages
Sylvia's vagina, Salomon nevertheless maintains that it was caused not by and attorney's fees, which were disallowed. The civil indemnity is retained at
his penis but by Conge's fingers. Conge's purpose was to punish her and to P30,000.00. Costs against the appellants.
disable her and thus prevent her from hitting him again.
SO ORDERED.
The trouble with this defense is that it is too comical for words. It looks like a
bawdy-house skit featuring a mad avenger and his naughty fingers. Besides,
the two accused and De Guzman have a confused recollection of how this Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
remarkable incident happened, the first perhaps in the annals of Philippine
jurisprudence.
Conge declared in his affidavit that Sylvia hit him only once and then swore
on direct examination that he was hit twice, whereas both Salomon De
Guzman swore he was hit only once.25 Salomon and Conge said that Sylvia
was wearing pants but De Guzman insisted with equal certainty that it was a
skirt.26 Salomon said Sylvia's pants were pulled down to her knees, but
Conge declared that she was completely disrobed, then said the pants came
down only to her ankles.27 Conge first said his fingers were spread when
they thrust them inside Sylvia's vagina but, sensing the trial court's disbelief,
recanted and said he put his fingers together in the shape of a cone before
plunging them into Sylvia's bared organ.28
We are satisfied with the findings of the trial court that the appellants, in
conspiracy with each other, committed the crime of rape upon Sylvia Soria,
with Salomon actually violating her as Conge helped restrain her while also
frightening her with his bolo. The crime was committed with force and
intimidation, and worse, against a mental retardate, who fortunately was
nevertheless able to narrate the details of her outrage. The theory of the
defense is absurd. The trial court was correct in rejecting it. The assessment
of the evidence, especially the credibility of the witnesses, is the primary
[G.R. No. 113791. February 22, 1996.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO the trial judge, as well as recalling events and relating them to such
MENDOZA, Accused-Appellant. recollections. The initial hesitancy of Paul Michael to name his father as the
author of the crime was sufficiently explained by the trial court as follows:
The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee. The first time Paul Michael was presented as [a] witness, the only thing
substantial he testified on was that his father boxed his mother in the mouth
Miguel P. Pineda for Accused-Appellant. and tied her. On further questions, he refused to answer anymore. The Court
noticed the reason for such adamant attitude of the witness. His father, the
accused, was directly in his sight and whenever their eyes met, the child
SYLLABUS could speak no more. The second time the witness was presented, the
private prosecutor covered the child from the accused. The Court likewise
directed the accused to sit farther away thereby placing the accused out of
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; TESTIMONIES; QUALIFICATION OF the direct sight of the witness. As a result, the child was able to testify freely
WITNESSES. — Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: and extensively without hesitation. We defer to such observation and
Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can explanation. Indeed, there are certain matters that aid the trial court in
perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may assessing the credibility of a witness which are not available to the appellate
be witnesses . . . With respect to the disqualification of children to be court, such as emphasis, gesture, and the inflection of the voice of the
witnesses, Section 21(b) of the abovementioned rule reads: The following witness. The trial court had the distinct opportunity to make such
persons cannot be witnesses: . . . (b) Children whose mental maturity is observations and to avail of such aids while Paul Michael was on the witness
such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which stand, thusly, we find no reason to disregard the assessment made by the
they are examined and of relating them truthfully. It is thus clear that any trial court.
child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully 3. CRIMINAL LAW; ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES; INTOXICATION;
facts respecting which he is examined. MITIGATING, ABSENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT IT WAS HABITUAL
NOR SUBSEQUENT TO THE PLAN TO COMMIT THE FELONY; CASE AT
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DETERMINATION THEREOF; BEST RESOLVED BY BAR. — The trial court correctly appreciated in favor of the accused-
THE TRIAL COURT. — The requirements then of a child’s competency as a appellant the mitigating circumstance of intoxication. The accused-appellant
witness are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and committed the felony in question in a state of intoxication and there was no
(c) capacity of communication. And in ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient proof that it was habitual nor subsequent to the plan to commit the
sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing requirements, it is settled felony.
that the trial court is called upon to make such determination. As held in
United States v. Buncad, (25 Phil. 530, 536 [1913]) quoting from Wheeler v.
United States (159 U.S. 523 [1895]), and reiterated in People v. Raptus (198
SCRA 425, 433 [1991]) and People v. Libungan (220 SCRA 315, 323 DECISION
[1993]): The decision of this question rests primarily with the trial judge, who
sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession or
lack of intelligence, and may resort to any examination which will tend to DAVIDE, JR., J.:
disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the
obligations of an oath. As many of these matters cannot be photographed
into the record, the decision of the trial judge will not be disturbed on review
Maria Gina Avila Mendoza, a mother of three young children, was put to fire
unless from that which is preserved it is clear that it was erroneous. The trial
in her home in Balasing, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, on 22 November 1989. She
court has adjudged Paul Michael competent to testify. We agree. A close
suffered extensive second to fourth degree burns and died of hypostatic
and careful examination of the testimony of Paul Michael shows that at the
pneumonia and infected fourth degree burns on 30 November 1989. Her
time he testified, he could be deemed a child of above average intelligence,
husband, Accused-appellant Rolando Mendoza, was charged with the crime
i.e., capable of giving responsive answers to the questions asked of him by
of parricide in an information filed on 29 June 1990 with Branch 8 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The accusatory portion

thereof read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library As Erlinda Porciuncula informed the Avila family that Gina had been brought
to the Manila Sanitarium Hospital in Pasay City, Teofisto, Jhun, and Rodora
That on or about the 22nd day of November, 1989, in the municipality of Sta. proceeded there. 7 According to Jhun, however, they were not able to talk to
Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Gina that day as she was inside the operating room. It was only after two
Honorable Court, the said accused Rolando Mendoza, armed with a days that Jhun was able to see Gina, who lay "naked with all the hospital
kerosene gas [sic] and with intent to kill his wife Maria Gina Mendoza, with gadget[s] in the mouth and at the head and she was completely bald and her
whom he was united in lawful wedlock, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully body was burned." 8 Jhun likewise testified that Gina was unable to talk to
and feloniously attack, assault and burn with the kerosene gas he was then her sister Rodora nor her father Teofisto. 9
provided, the said Maria Gina Mendoza which directly caused her death.
Gina died on 30 November 1989. Dr. Noel Minay, Medico-Legal Officer of
Contrary to law. 1 the NBI,, conducted the autopsy and determined the cause of death to be
"hypostatic pneumonia; infected 4th degree burns" ; 10 and in his Autopsy
Trial on the merits was had after accused-appellant entered a plea of not Report, 11 he entered the following post-mortem findings:chanrob1es virtual
guilty at his arraignment. 2 1aw library
The prosecution presented as its witnesses Paul Michael Mendoza, a five- Burns, extensive, second to fourth degree, with skin grafts, excepting the
year old child of the victim and the accused-appellant; Jhun Avila, Teofisto back of the neck and head, pelvic area, buttocks, whole of the back,
Avila, and Rodora Avila, the victim’s brother, father, and sister, respectively; posterior aspect of the right leg, and lower anterior third of the leg and foot,
and Dr. Nieto M. Salvador, the Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau left side.
of Investigation (NBI). On its part, the defense presented the accused-
appellant himself and Erlinda Porciuncula, a childhood friend. Lungs, with foci of consoliditions at the bases; transections shows (sic)
yellowish mucoid material in the lower part of the tracheo-bronchial tree.
The testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution established the
following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Brain and other visceral organs, marked congestion.
The accused-appellant and the victim were married on 30 January 1985 at Stomach contains small amount of yellowish fluid material.
the Sto. Cristo Parish Church in Bocaue, Bulacan and lived in Balasing, Sta.
Maria, Bulacan. 3 Their union bore three children: Paul Michael, the eldest, This report also indicated that the cause of death was "HYPOSTATIC
who was born on 7 June 1985, 4 John-John, and Paula, the youngest. 5 PNEUMONIA; INFECTED FOURTH DEGREE BURNS."cralaw virtua1aw
library
In the evening of 22 November 1989, the accused-appellant and his wife
were in their residence with their children. At around 4:00 a.m. the next Dr. Nieto M. Salvador testified on the certification and autopsy report, in view
morning, relatives of the accused-appellant went to the house of Jhun Avila of Dr. Minay’s resignation from the NBI sometime after he examined the
(the victim’s brother) in Wawa, Balagtas, Bulacan, and informed him that his cadaver of the victim. 12
sister Gina "got burned." Two hours later, Jhun and his father Teofisto Avila
went to the house of Gina and her husband, only to discover that the latter In the evening of 30 November 1989, Jhun told Paul Michael that his mother
were not there. They found the things inside the house in disarray; saw a Gina had died. Paul Michael then narrated to him what actually happened to
Coke bottle which smelled of kerosene, hair strands and burned human flesh his mother that fateful evening. Because of these revelations and the
in the comfort room; and the burned clothes of Gina outside the house. They findings of the doctor, Jhun reported the matter to the police authorities in
also noticed that the branches and;eaves of the atienza tree in front of the Sta. Maria, Bulacan. 13
house were likewise somewhat burned. They proceeded to a neighbor’s
house where Paul Michael, John-John, and Paula were temporarily Jhun Avila had gone five times to the residence of Gina and the accused-
sheltered. Paul Michael was sitting in a corner and somewhat "tulala," while appellant from 23 November 1989 to 30 November 1989, yet he did not see
Paula was sleeping. Jhun then brought the children to his house. 6 the accused-appellant; in fact, the latter never showed up during the wake
nor burial of Gina. It was only when the accused-appellant was arrested in A At first he tied up my mother, then he poured kerosine [sic] upon my
the house of a woman in Longos, Balagtas, Bulacan, 14 that Jhun saw him mother, Sir.
for the first time after the incident.
Q What was tied, the hands or the feet of your mother?
The medical expenses incurred for the hospitalization of Gina amounted to
P88,750.00, of which, her parents were able to pay only P18,000.00. For the A The hands, Your Honor.
balance, Teofisto had to sign a promissory note to be paid on installments.
15 Q How was it tied?
As to how Gina was burned, only five-year old Paul Michael could testify A At the back, Your Honor.
thereon.
Q Do you know the reason why she was tied up?
In his testimony during the presentation of the evidence in chief on 18
February 1991, Paul Michael declared that one evening inside their house, A Yes Your Honor. They were quarreling because my mother wanted me to
his father boxed his mother on her mouth and then tied her up. However, the go with my father to [sic] street corner.
witness did not answer succeeding questions which sought to elicit what
happened thereafter, although he kept on looking at his father throughout Q Then what happened next?
this period. He later revealed that he saw matches and kerosene in their
house. He likewise declared that his mother was now in heaven because A Because of that they quarreled already.
she was dead. 16 During his rebuttal testimony on 12 October 1992, Paul
Michael categorically declared that it was his father who "burned" his Q What you mean is that your mother was objecting you to go [sic] with your
mother. The accused-appellant, who was drunk at that time, first tied the father?
victim’s hands behind her back, then "poured kerosene" on the front of her
body and set her aflame. Paul Michael further declared that his father tied-up A My mother wanted me to go with my father but my father refused me [sic]
his mother because they quarreled when his mother wanted him (Paul to go with him, Your Honor.
Michael) to go with the accused-appellant to the street corner, but his father
refused. Finally, many times before, his parents quarreled because his father Q What would you do at the street corner with your father?
was always drunk. 17 Pertinent portions of Paul Michael’s testimony on
rebuttal are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library A She just wanted me to accompany my father.
Q When your father Rolando Mendoza testified on direct examination, he Q And because of that quarrel, your father tied the hands of your mother?
stated that when he returned to your house in Balasing, Sta. Maria, Bulacan
on November 22, 1989, he saw your mother was jumping up and down while A Yes, Your Honor.
her dress was already burning. What can you say about that?
Q Then he put kerosine [sic] at the front body [sic] of your mother?
A It is not true, Sir.
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Why do you say that it is not true?
Q And after putting kerosine [sic], what did he do next?
A Because it was he who burned my mother, Sir.
A He lighted it, Your Honor.
COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Q Was that the first time that you[r] mother and your father quarreled?
How did he burn your mother?
A Many times, Your Honor.
proceeded to remove her dress and cried for help. The neighbors came over
Q What was the cause of their quarrel? and he entrusted the children to them. Several others arrived and he asked
one of them who owned a vehicle to help him bring his wife to the hospital.
A Because my father was always drunk, Your Honor. They were able to bring her to St. Mary’s Hospital, but since the hospital did
not have a burns specialist, they were advised to bring the victim to a
Q At the time when your mother was tied and then kerosine [sic] was poured hospital in Manila. The driver of the jeep, however, refused to bring them to
upon her dress, was your father drunk? Manila as he had neither a driver’s license nor gas. The accused-appellant
was instead brought to Bocaue, Bulacan, and there he was able to procure
A Yes, Your Honor. another vehicle and borrow some money. Eventually, his wife was brought to
the Manila Sanitarium Hospital after the PGH refused to admit the victim. He
Q Your father always went out and when he returned he was always drunk? stayed with his wife from the time she was admitted up to the time she died,
and even bought the needed medicines. He did not attend her wake nor
A Yes, Your Honor. 18 burial because of the threats his brother-in-law made. When asked if he
knew why his wife burned herself, he surmised that she was "aburido" 21
The defense, of course, had a different story to tell. from all their financial difficulties. 22
Erlinda Porciuncula, who grew up with the accused-appellant and was like a In giving full credence to the testimony of eyewitness Paul Michael, 23 the
sister to him, testified that at around 8:30 p.m. of 22 November 1989, trial court observed that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Rolando Mendoza came to her house asking for help because his wife
burned herself. Together with the accused-appellant, she borrowed the As provided by Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, a person who
owner-type jeep of her neighbor so they could bring his wife to the hospital. can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to others, may
They proceeded to St. Mary’s Hospital, but the attending physician advised be a witness. A four-year old boy can already speak clearly, can understand
them to bring the victim to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). At the things happening around him, and ready to study, to read and to write. For
hospital, the staff could not admit the victim due to the unavailability of families who can afford, a four-year old child is already sent to the nursery to
rooms. On the way to the PGH, the victim, who was lying in the front seat of begin his/her studies. An intelligent boy is undoubtedly the best observer to
the jeep, told Porciuncula that she was fed up with her life and was be found. He is little influenced by the suggestion of others and describes
entrusting her children to her. They then went to the Manila Sanitarium objects and occurrences as he has really seen them (Pp. v. Bustos, 45 Phil.
Hospital where the victim was immediately given first aid and transferred to 9). Paul Michael was five months over four years when the incident
"the isolated Room No. 328." The accused-appellant requested the witness happened. He could perceive things happening around him. This was the
to buy medicine and inform the relatives of the victim of what had happened, reason why when his grandfather and an uncle found him in the house of a
which she acceded to. She was able to visit the victim three more times neighbor, he was in a state of shock, or at least dumbfounded (tulala).
before the victim died on 30 November 1989, and on two of these occasions, Because he knew the implication of what had happened to his mother. He
she saw the accused-appellant at the hospital. 19 knew that the burning of his mother might cause her death. If, indeed, he
could not yet perceive things, such happening would pass unnoticed and
Accused-appellant Rolando Mendoza testified that on 22 November 1989, without impact on him. Unless a child’s testimony is punctured with serious
between 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., three persons who wanted to befriend him visited inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that he was coached, if he can
him in his house. These three persons, of whom the accused-appellant perceive and make known his perception, he is considered a competent
could only name one, brought a bottle of liquor and had a drinking session witness (Pp. v. Cidro, Et Al., 56 O.G. 3547).
with him, which lasted about an hour or two. As these three persons were
leaving, the accused-appellant offered to accompany them to the road. After The first time Paul Michael was presented as [a] witness, the only thing
doing so, he returned home, whereupon he saw his wife jumping up and substantial he testified on was that his father boxed his mother in the mouth
down and removing her burning clothes. He saw a pail of water which he and tied her. On further questions, he refused to answer anymore. The Court
then used to douse out the flames. At this time, his wife cursed him and said: noticed the reason for such adamant attitude of the witness. His father, the
"Putang-ina mo, sawang-sawa na ako sa buhay na ito," and "Huwag mo accused, was directly in his sight and whenever their eyes met, the child
akong pakialaman." 20 The accused-appellant did not mind her, merely could speak no more. The second time the witness was presented, the
private prosecutor covered the child from the accused. The Court likewise penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the parents of the victim
directed the accused to sit farther away thereby placing the accused out of Maria Gina Avila-Mendoza the sum of P88,000.00 representing the amount
the direct sight of the witness. As a result, the child was able to testify freely of hospital bills of the victim. No cost.
and extensively without hesitation. 24
SO ORDERED. 26
The trial court rejected the version of the accused-appellant, stating
that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library In this appeal, the accused-appellant prays for a reversal of the lower court’s
decision, maintaining that if his evidence is considered in its entirety, it would
Accused Rolando Mendoza made the defense that his wife Maria Gina show his innocence. The accused-appellant underscores the fact
Avila-Mendoza burned herself. He, however, lost courage when Gina died. that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
After Gina’s death, he left the hospital and never returned. He failed to visit
her during the wake and even during the burial. He was forced to come out [A]fter November 22, 1989, the date of the incident, the child Paul Michael
only when arrested in a house of a woman in Longos, Balagtas, Bulacan. Mendoza had been and remains under the custody and care of the parents
Against such behaviour of his may be applied an interpretation of flight in and brothers and sisters of the late Maria Gina Mendoza, who in full and
criminal law — that flight of the accused is an evidence of guilt and a guilty unwavering anger, hatred, hostility, resentment, revenge and spite against
conscience (U.S. v. Alegado, 25 Phil. 310). Accused gave as a reason for the accused, pursued the charge against the accused and the ones who
his failure to attend the wake and burial of his wife the threat of his brother- brought the child to the court to testify. 27
in-law to kill him if anything would happen to Gina. It is said that the wicked
flee even when no man pursueth, whereas the righteous are as brave as a He thus asks this Court to disregard the testimony of Paul Michael for being
lion (U.S. v. Sarikala, 37 Phil. 486). If, indeed, Accused was not guilty and "open to serious question and consideration" as it was "often attended [by]
nothing bothered his conscience, he would be brave as a lion to meet his unintelligible answers and punctuated by contrary answers to previously
brother-in-law and face any and all consequences. In the same way that if given answers" ;" [b]esides the child’s tender age, he suffer[s] from [a] lack
his conscience is clear, no threat, real or imaginary, in the whole world would or inadequacy of sense of duty to tell the truth." He further claims that per
prevent him from staying by the side of his wife during her last moments on the findings of the Medico-Legal Officer, the victim did not die of burns but of
earth. The fact that he went into hiding, ashamed or fearful of the death of hypostatic pneumonia. 28
his wife is an indication of his guilt. Further, the burning in the dress and
body of Gina gives support to the claim of the prosecution that she was After a thorough examination of the records and scrutiny of the evidence, we
burned. Paul Michael testified that the hands of his mother were tied at the find no merit in this appeal. The accused-appellant’s seven-page Brief
back. Jhun Avila testified that the branches and leaves of the atienza tree miserably fails to present convincing grounds why the challenged decision
were burned. They tend to show that Gina was tied at the back, placed near should be overturned.
the trunk of a tree and burned. Being tied, only the front portion of her body
would naturally be burned. The tendency of one who burns himself is to burn The lower court convicted the accused-appellant primarily on the basis of the
his whole body and not stay stationary in one position so that both his front testimony of eyewitness Paul Michael Mendoza, and it is obvious that the
and back portions of his body would be burned. In this case, however, only pith of the present appeal is the child’s competency to testify and the
the front portion of Gina’s dress and body were burned as well as the credibility of his testimony.
branches and leaves of the atienza tree. That indicates that while the victim
was burning, she remained stationary in the place where she was Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw
tied.25cralaw:red library
Accordingly, the trial court convicted the accused-appellant as Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can
follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may
be witnesses. . . .
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Rolando Mendoza guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide, defined and penalized under With respect to the disqualification of children to be witnesses, Section 21(b)
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to a of the abovementioned rule reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
v. Buncad, 34 quoting from Wheeler v. United States, 35 and reiterated in

The following persons cannot be witnesses:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library People v. Raptus 36 and People v. Libungan: 37
x x x The decision of this question rests primarily with the trial judge, who sees the
proposed witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession or lack of
intelligence, and may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligations
perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them of an oath. As many of these matters cannot be photographed into the
truthfully. record, the decision of the trial judge will not be disturbed on review unless
from that which is preserved it is clear that it was erroneous. 38
It is thus clear that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness
if he can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to others The trial court has adjudged Paul Michael competent to testify. We agree. A
and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined. In the 1913 close and careful examination of the testimony of Paul Michael shows that at
decision in United States v. Buncad, 29 this Court stated:chanrob1es virtual the time he testified, he could be deemed a child of above average
1aw library intelligence, i.e., capable of giving responsive answers to the questions
asked of him by the trial judge, as well as recalling events and relating them
Professor Wigmore, after referring to the common-law precedents upon this to such recollections. The initial hesitancy of Paul Michael to name his father
point, says: "But this much may be taken as settled, that no rule defines any as the author of the crime was sufficiently explained by the trial court as
particular age as conclusive of incapacity; in each instance the capacity of follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
the particular child is to be investigated." (Wigmore on Evidence, vol. I, p.
638) 30 The first time Paul Michael was presented as [a] witness, the only thing
substantial he testified on was that his father boxed his mother in the mouth
While on the same subject, Underhill declares:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library and tied her. On further questions, he refused to answer anymore. The Court
noticed the reason for such adamant attitude of the witness. His father, the
§ 257. Children on the witness stand. — Under the common law, accused, was directly in his sight and whenever their eyes met, the child
competency of a child under the age of fourteen years to testify must be could speak no more. The second time the witness was presented, the
shown to the satisfaction of the court. He is presumptively incompetent, but if private prosecutor covered the child from the accused. The Court likewise
he is shown to be competent it is immaterial how young he may be when he directed the accused to sit farther away thereby placing the accused out of
testifies. He is competent if he possesses mental capacity and memory the direct sight of the witness. As a result, the child was able to testify freely
sufficient to enable him to give a reasonable and intelligible account of the and extensively without hesitation. 39
transaction he has seen, if he understands and has a just appreciation of the
difference between right and wrong, and comprehends the character, We defer to such observation and explanation. Indeed, there are certain
meaning and obligation of an oath. If the witness fulfills these requirements, matters that aid the trial court in assessing the credibility of a witness which
it is immaterial as bearing upon his competency that he is unable to define are not available to the appellate court, such as emphasis, gesture, and the
the oath or to define testimony. In the wise discretion of the court, a child inflection of the voice of the witness. The trial court had the distinct
four, five, six and for such ages as seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, opportunity to make such observations and to avail of such aids while Paul
thirteen or fifteen years of age may be shown competent to testify. It may not Michael was on the witness stand, 40 thusly, we find no reason to disregard
be said that there is any particular age at which as a matter of law all the assessment made by the trial court.
children are competent or incompetent . . . 31
The accused-appellant’s contention that Paul Michael’s testimony could
The requirements then of a child’s competency as a witness are the: (a) have been influenced by the relatives of Gina, who were full of "unwavering
capacity of observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of anger, hatred, hostility, resentment, revenge," more so since the child had
communication. 32 And in ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient been in their custody since after 22 November 1989, is unacceptable. The
intelligence according to the foregoing requirements, it is settled that the trial charge is nothing but unmitigated speculation as not a shred of evidence
court is called upon to make such determination. 33 As held in United States was offered in support thereof. Not even the rigorous cross-examination
Paul Michael underwent dented the probative force of his testimony; on the x x x
contrary, it merely added strength thereto as it elicited nothing less than the
boy’s adherence to truth.
Q Would you say that hypostatic pneumonia may also be caused by fourth
We realize how extremely painful it was for Paul Michael to reveal that it was degree burns?
his father who burned his mother. He knew that such a revelation could send
his father to jail and thus brand him a son of a killer or a convict. If he did, A Yes, Sir. 42
nevertheless, it was to expose the truth and give justice to his mother who
met an excruciatingly painful death. Verily, "from the mouths of children we It goes without saying that an accused is liable for all the consequences of
get the truth." 41 his felonious act. 43
Neither are we persuaded by the accused-appellant’s claim that the cause of Finally, the accused-appellant was never seen after the death of his wife —
death of his wife was hypostatic pneumonia and not due to the burns she neither during her wake nor at her burial. His whereabouts were unknown.
sustained. Such a claim borders on misrepresentation, for as earlier shown, He did not even bother to visit his children or inform them where to find him
both the Autopsy Report (Exhibit "H-1") and the Certificate of Post-Mortem in case they needed him, knowing all too well that he was the only parent left
Examination (Exhibit "H") indicated the cause of death to be "hypostatic them. In short, he was even afraid to see his children; he could not trust
pneumonia; infected fourth degree burns." Moreover, as testified to by Dr. them. In a manner of speaking, he was afraid of his own shadow. All his
Nieto Salvador, the proximate cause of the hypostatic pneumonia was protestations of innocence are thus belied by his flight as indicative of guilt
Gina’s recumbent position due to the fourth degree burns she suffered. on his part, or of his guilty mind. It has been said that the wicked man flees
Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library though no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. 44 The
explanation proffered for his flight is lame and feeble, moreover, he offered
COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library no credible proof that indeed the family of his wife had threatened him bodily
harm.
What could have caused hypostatic pneumonia?
The trial court correctly appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant the
A The victim was recumbent because of her intensive infections in front of mitigating circumstance of intoxication. The accused-appellant committed
her body and therefore she was always lying down which could have caused the felony in question in a state of intoxication and there was no sufficient
the hypostatic pneumonia. proof that it was habitual nor subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. 45
It failed, however, to award civil indemnity to the children of the victim.
Q What you mean [is] it [was] because of the fourth degree burns the victim Conformably with current case law, they should be awarded the sum of
sustained in front that’s why she was always lying down and unable to P50,000.00.
change her position?
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Being in
A Yes, Your Honor. accordance with the facts and the law, the challenged decision of Branch 8
of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 1414-M-90 is
Q Do you mean that hypostatic pneumonia can be acquire[d] by merely AFFIRMED, subject to the above modification on the additional award of
always lying down? P50,000.00, as civil indemnity, to the heirs of the victim, Gina Avila
Mendoza.
A Yes, Your Honor.
Costs against the Accused-Appellant.
Q Is that the only cause?
SO ORDERED.
A That’s why it is called hypostatic because hypostatic means that the
assumed position of the patient is recumbent and the recumbent position of Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
the patient would greatly affect the fluids in the lungs as it can’t flow down.
G.R. No. 198240 July 3, 2013

LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS*, Petitioner, After the pre-trial, respondents moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a
vs. witness. They argued that the RTC did not authorize the handwriting
THE HEIRS OFTHE LATE DR. ANDRES NAVARRO, JR., namely NONITA examination of the affidavit. They added that presenting PO2 Alvarez as a
NAVARRO, FRANCISCA NAVARRO MALAPITAN, SOLEDAD NAVARRO witness will violate their constitutional right to due process since no notice
BROCHLER, NONITA BARRUN NAVARRO, JR., IMELDA NAVARRO, was given to them before the examination was conducted.8 Thus, PO2
ANDRES NAVARRO III, MILAGROS NAVARRO YAP, PILAR NAVARRO, Alvarez’s report is a worthless piece of paper and her testimony would be
TERESA NAVARRO-TABITA, and LOURDES BARRUN- useless and irrelevant.9
REJUSO, Respondents.
In its Order10 dated August 19, 2004, the RTC granted respondents’ motion
DECISION and disqualified PO2 Alvarez as a witness. The RTC ruled that PO2
Alvarez’s supposed testimony would be hearsay as she has no personal
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: knowledge of the alleged handwriting of Andres, Sr. Also, there is no need
for PO2 Alvarez to be presented, if she is to be presented as an expert
witness, because her testimony is not yet needed.
Petitioner Luisa Navarro Marcos appeals the Decision1 dated February 28,
2011 and Resolution2 dated July 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 92460. The sisters sought reconsideration of the order but the RTC denied their
motion in an Order11 dated October 11, 2005.
The antecedent facts follow:
Aggrieved, the sisters filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which
however, dismissed their petition in the assailed Decision dated February
Spouses Andres Navarro, Sr. and Concepcion Medina-Navarro died in 1958 28, 2011 on the ground that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 5215 has
and 1993, respectively. They left behind several parcels of land including a mooted the issue of PO2 Alvarez’s disqualification as a witness.
108.3997-hectare lot (subject lot) located in Cayabon, Milagros, Masbate.3
Later, the CA likewise denied their motion for reconsideration in its
The spouses were survived by their daughters Luisa Navarro Marcos, herein Resolution dated July 29, 2011. The CA refused to take judicial notice of the
petitioner, and Lydia Navarro Grageda, and the heirs of their only son decision of another CA Division which reinstated Civil Case No. 5215. The
Andres Navarro, Jr. The heirs of Andres, Jr. are the respondents herein.4 CA held that a CA Justice cannot take judicial notice of decisions or matters
pending before another Division of the appellate court where he or she is not
Petitioner and her sister Lydia discovered that respondents are claiming a member. The CA also held that the sisters were negligent for belatedly
exclusive ownership of the subject lot. Respondents based their claim on the informing it that Civil Case No. 5215 was reinstated.
Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property dated May 19, 1954 where Andres, Sr.
donated the subject lot to Andres, Jr.5 Hence, this appeal.
Believing that the affidavit is a forgery, the sisters, through Assistant Fiscal Petitioner argues that the CA erred in refusing to reconsider the assailed
Andres Marcos, requested a handwriting examination of the affidavit. The decision in light of the reinstatement of Civil Case No. 5215. Petitioner adds
PNP handwriting expert PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez found that Andres, Sr.’s that the CA erred in not ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of
signature on the affidavit and the submitted standard signatures of Andres, discretion in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as a witness.12 They stress that PO2
Sr. were not written by one and the same person.6 Alvarez will be presented as an expert witness to render an opinion on
whether the disputed handwriting was indeed made by Andres, Sr. or
Thus, the sisters sued the respondents for annulment of the deed of whether it is a forgery.13
donation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate, where the case
was docketed as Civil Case No. 5215.7
In their comment,14 respondents counter that the CA properly disqualified reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. Section 22 disqualifies a witness
PO2 Alvarez. They also agreed with the CA that her disqualification was by reason of marriage. Section 23 disqualifies a witness by reason of death
mooted by the dismissal of Civil Case No. 5215. or insanity of the adverse party. Section 24 disqualifies a witness by reason
of privileged communication.
We find in favor of petitioner.
In Cavili v. Judge Florendo,21 we have held that the specific enumeration of
The CA ruling that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 5215 has mooted the disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other
issue of PO2 Alvarez’s disqualification as a witness can no longer be than those mentioned in the Rules. The Rules should not be interpreted to
justified. Hence, we reverse the CA ruling. While we agree with the CA in include an exception not embodied therein. We said:
considering the RTC’s Orders15 which dismissed Civil Case No. 5215, we
are unable to agree with its refusal to take judicial notice of the Decision16 of The generosity with which the Rule allows people to testify is apparent.
another CA Division which reinstated Civil Case No. 5215. Subsequent Interest in the outcome of a case, conviction of a crime unless otherwise
proceedings were even held in the reinstated Civil Case No. 5215 per provided by law, and religious belief are not grounds for disqualification.
Orders17 issued by the RTC which were already submitted to the CA. That
Civil Case No. 5215 was reinstated is a fact that cannot be ignored. Sections 19 and 20 of Rule 130 provide for specific disqualifications. Section
19 disqualifies those who are mentally incapacitated and children whose
We also agree with petitioner that the RTC committed grave abuse of tender age or immaturity renders them incapable of being witnesses. Section
discretion in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as a witness. Grave abuse of 20 provides for disqualification based on conflicts of interest or on
discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers to capricious or relationship. Section 21 provides for disqualification based on privileged
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The communications. Section 15 of Rule 132 may not be a rule on
abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of disqualification of witnesses but it states the grounds when a witness may be
a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act impeached by the party against whom he was called.
at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.18 Grave abuse of There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default
discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution or from taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties. The law does not
grossly disregards the law or existing jurisprudence.19 provide default as an exception. The specific enumeration of disqualified
witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those
In Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits mentioned in the Rules. It is a maxim of recognized utility and merit in the
System v. Republic of the Philippines,20 we said that a witness must only construction of statutes that an express exception, exemption, or saving
possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided in clause excludes other exceptions. x x x As a general rule, where there are
the Rules of Court. Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence provides: express exceptions these comprise the only limitations on the operation of a
statute and no other exception will be implied. x x x The Rules should not be
SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications.–Except as provided in the next interpreted to include an exception not embodied therein. (Emphasis
succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make supplied; citations omitted.)
known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive and
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction make known her perception to others.1âwphi1 We have no doubt that she is
of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for qualified as a witness. She cannot be disqualified as a witness since she
disqualification. possesses none of the disqualifications specified under the Rules.
Respondents’ motion to disqualify her should have been denied by the RTC
for it was not based on any of these grounds for disqualification. The RTC
Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under Sections 21 to rather confused the qualification of the witness with the credibility and weight
24, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence. Section 21 disqualifies a witness by of her testimony.
Moreover, Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence is clear that the WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the (1) Decision
opinion of an expert witness may be received in evidence, to wit: dated February 28, 2011 and Resolution dated July 29, 2011 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92460, and (2) Orders dated August 19, 2004
SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness.–The opinion of a witness on a matter and October II, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 5215. We
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown DENY respondents' motion to disqualify P02 Mary Grace Alvarez as a
to possess, may be received in evidence. witness.
For instance, in Tamani v. Salvador,22 we were inclined to believe that No pronouncement as to costs.
Tamani’s signature was forged after considering the testimony of the PNP
document examiner that the case involved simulated or copied forgery, such SO ORDERED.
that the similarities will be superficial. We said that the value of the opinion of
a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing Associate Justice
out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between
genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice
or detection from an unpracticed observer.
Thus, we disagree with the RTC that PO2 Alvarez’s testimony would be
hearsay. Under Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, PO2 Alvarez
is allowed to render an expert opinion, as the PNP document examiner was
allowed in Tamani. But the RTC already ruled at the outset that PO2
Alvarez’s testimony is hearsay even before her testimony is offered and she
is called to the witness stand. Under the circumstances, the CA should have
issued a corrective writ of certiorari and annulled the RTC ruling.
True, the use of the word "may" in Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on
Evidence signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive
and not mandatory on the part of the courts.23 Jurisprudence is also replete
with instances wherein this Court dispensed with the testimony of expert
witnesses to prove forgeries.24 However, we have also recognized that
handwriting experts are often offered as expert witnesses considering the
technical nature of the procedure in examining forged documents.25 More
important, analysis of the questioned signature in the deed of donation
executed by the late Andres Navarro, Sr. in crucial to the resolution of the
case.
In sum, the RTC should not have disqualified P02 Alvarez as a witness. She
has the qualifications of witness and possess none of the disqualifications
under the Rules. The Rules allow the opinion of an expert witness to be
received as evidence. In Tamani, we used the opinion of an expert witness.
The value of P02 Alvarez's expert opinion cannot be determined if P02
Alvarez is not even allowed to testify on the handwriting examination she
conducted.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 199740, March 24, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JERRY damages and of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

OBOGNE, Accused–Appellant.
SO ORDERED.9
RESOLUTION
Hence, this appeal.
DEL CASTILLO, J.: In a Resolution10 dated February 15, 2012, we required both parties to file
their Supplemental Briefs. However, they opted to adopt the briefs they filed
Appellant Jerry Obogne was charged with the crime of rape in an before the Court of Appeals as their Supplemental Briefs.11
Information that reads as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Appellant argues that the testimony of “AAA” deserves no credence because
That on or about the 29th day of July 2002, in the afternoon, she was incapable of intelligently making known her perception to others by
in barangay Ogbong, municipality of Viga, province of Catanduanes, reason of her mental disability.
Philippines, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused
by means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously x x x We are not persuaded.
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of “AAA”,1 a 12–year old mentally
retarded person, to the damage and prejudice of the said “AAA”.2 Sections 20 and 21, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provide:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
When arraigned on December 17, 2004, appellant entered a plea of not
guilty.3 On March 13, 2008, the Regional Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes, Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. – Except as provided in the next
Branch 43, rendered a Judgment,4viz:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
WHEREFORE, judgment is, hereby, rendered finding Jerry Obogne guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape committed against xxxx
“AAA” and, hereby, sentences him to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify “AAA” the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. – The
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; following persons cannot be witnesses:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
and to pay the costs.
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for
SO ORDERED. 5 examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known
their perception to others;
The trial court did not consider “AAA’s” mental retardation as a qualifying
circumstance considering that the Information failed to allege that appellant (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of
knew of “AAA’s” mental disability. perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them
truthfully.
Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals.6 In its Decision7 of
March 28, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling with In this case, “AAA” is totally qualified to take the witness stand
modifications, viz:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary notwithstanding her mental condition. As correctly observed by the trial
court:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Judgment, dated March 13,
2008, of the Regional Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 34,8 in When “AAA” was presented on November 14, 2006, defense counsel
Criminal Case No. 3303, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused– manifested his objection and called the Court’s attention to Rule 130,
appellant is further ordered to pay “AAA” the additional amount of Section 21 of the Rules of Court, which lists down persons who cannot be
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity apart from the award of P50,000.00 as moral witnesses; i.e. those whose mental condition, at the time of their production
for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known fabrication.
their perception to others x x x.
We stress that, contrary to accused–appellant’s assertions, mental
During the continuation of AAA’s testimony x x x she was able to recall what retardation per se does not affect a witness’ credibility. A mental retardate
[appellant] did to her x x x. may be a credible witness.13
“AAA” recalled that while she was playing, [appellant] saw her and asked her Appellant’s assertion that the trial court and the appellate court should have
to go with him because he would give her a sugar cane. [Appellant] brought considered his alibi must likewise fail. For alibi to prosper, it must not only
“AAA” to his house and while inside, ‘he removed her panty, and then be shown that appellant was at another place at the time of the commission
inserted his penis into her vagina and he got the knife and then he took a of the crime but that it was also impossible for him to be present at the crime
sugar cane and then he gave it to her and then she went home.’ scene. In this case, appellant attempted to show that he was
at barangay Ananong at the time of the rape incident. However, as found by
xxxx the trial court, the distance between barangay Ananong
and barangay Ogbong is only four kilometers and could be traversed in one
This Court finds “AAA” a very credible witness, even in her mental condition. hour or even less.14
Contrary to defense counsel’s objection that “AAA” was not capable of
intelligently making known her perception to others, “AAA” managed to Finally, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant
recount the ordeal she had gone through in the hands of the accused, guilty of simple rape and properly imposed upon him the penalty
though in a soft voice and halting manner x x x. of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 266–B, par. 1 of the Revised Penal
Code. The trial court correctly ruled that “AAA’s” mental disability could not
“AAA’s” simple account of her ordeal clearly reflects sincerity and be considered as a qualifying circumstance because the Information failed to
truthfulness. allege that appellant knew of such mental condition at the time of the
commission of the crime. As held in People v. Limio:15
While it is true that, on cross–examination, “AAA” faltered in the sequence of
events x x x this is understandable because even one with normal mental By itself, the fact that the offended party in a rape case is a mental retardate
condition would not be able to recall, with a hundred percent accuracy, does not call for the imposition of the death penalty, unless knowledge by
events that transpired in the past. But “AAA” was certain that ‘it was a long the offender of such mental disability is specifically alleged and adequately
time x x x after the incident’ when it was reported to the police. Likewise, proved by the prosecution.
she was very certain that the accused inserted his penis into her vagina x x
x.12 For the Anti–Rape Law of 1997, now embodied in Article 266–B of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) expressly provides that the death penalty shall
In the same vein, the appellate court found “AAA” qualified to take the also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with the qualifying
witness stand, viz:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary circumstance of ‘(10) when the offender knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time
Our own evaluation of the records reveals that “AAA” was shown to be able of the commission of the crime.’ Said knowledge x x x qualifies rape as a
to perceive, to make known her perception to others and to remember heinous offense. Absent said circumstance, which must be proved by the
traumatic incidents. Her narration of the incident of rape given in the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction of appellant for
following manner is worthy of note:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary qualified rape under Art. 266–B (10), RPC, could not be sustained, although
the offender may be held liable for simple rape and sentenced
xxxx to reclusion perpetua.16
Private complainant “AAA” provided a clear, convincing and competent xxxx

testimonial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused–appellant of the crime
of rape beyond reasonable doubt. As found by the trial court, the testimony [T]he mere fact that the rape victim is a mental retardate does not
of “AAA” was replete with consistent details, negating the probability of automatically merit the imposition of the death penalty. Under Article 266–B
(10) of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge by the offender of the mental
disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of the
commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the
imposition of the death penalty. As such this circumstance must be formally
alleged in the information and duly proved by the prosecution.
Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure requires both qualifying
and aggravating circumstances to be alleged with specificity in the
information. x x x But in the absence of a specific or particular allegation in
the information that the appellant knew of her mental disability or retardation,
as well as lack of adequate proof that appellant knew of this fact, Article
266–B (10), RPC, could not be properly applied x x x
Hence, the appellant can only be convicted of simple rape, as defined under
Article 266–A of the [Revised] Penal Code, for which the imposable penalty
is reclusion perpetua.17
However, it must be mentioned that appellant is not eligible for parole

pursuant to Section 318 of Republic Act No. 9346.19
The awards of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil

indemnity are likewise proper. However, the award of exemplary damages
must be increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.20 Also,
interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed from date of finality of
this judgment until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the March 28, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA–
G.R. CR H.C. No. 03270 finding appellant Jerry Obogne guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay “AAA” civil indemnity of
P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that appellant is not eligible for parole;
the amount of exemplary damages is increased to P30,000.00; and all
damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date
of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, and Reyes,* JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 200793 June 4, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, That on or about the 16th day of September 1997 in
vs. Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused with
MILAN ROXAS y AGUILUZ, Accused-Appellant. force and intimidation did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at
DECISION knifepoint upon the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor
9 years of age by then and there laying her on the chairs
inside the bathroom, then blindfolded her and then
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: removed her shorts and underwear then accused inserted
his penis inside her vagina and thereafter had carnal
This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR.- knowledge of her against her will and without her
H.C. No. 03473 dated August 16, 2011, which affirmed with modification the consent.6
Judgment2 of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City dated
December 11, 2007 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-00-91967 to Q-00-91971 4. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91970:
finding accused-appellant Milan Roxas y Aguiluz guilty of five counts of rape
against AAA,3 a minor who was 9 years old at the time of the first rape and
10 years old at the time of the succeeding four rapes. That on or about the 20th day of March 1998 in Quezon
City, Philippines, the above-named accused with force and
intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
Five Informations were filed against accused-appellant Roxas, charging him feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at knifepoint
as follows: upon the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years
of age by then and there laying her down on a bed inside
1. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967: That on or about the 9th day of his grandparents’ room then blindfolded her, then removed
August 1998 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named her shorts and underwear, then accused inserted his penis
accused with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, inside her vagina and thereafter had carnal knowledge of
unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at her against her will and without her consent.7
knifepoint upon the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years
of age by then and there blindfolding her, then removed her shorts 5. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91971:
and underwear then accused inserted his penis inside her vagina
and thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her will and
without her consent.4 That on or about the 11th day of May 1998 in Quezon
City, Philippines, the above-named accused with force and
intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
2. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91968: feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at knifepoint
upon the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years
That on or about the 28th day of July 1998 in Quezon City, of age by then and there removing her shorts and
Philippines, the above-named accused with force and underwear and inserting his penis inside her vagina and
intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her will and
feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at knifepoint without her consent.8 Accused-appellant Roxas entered a
upon the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years plea of Not Guilty to all the crimes charged.9
of age by then and there blindfolding her and removing her
shorts and underwear and inserting his penis inside her The prosecution’s factual account based on the testimony of AAA was
vagina and thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against concisely stated by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Appellee’s Brief,
her will and without her consent.5 as follows:
3. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91969:

On 16 September 1997, [AAA], who was then 9 years of age, was at her Again, she did not report the incident because of accused-appellant’s threats
grandmother [CCC]’s house located on [XXX], Quezon City. In the morning should she report the incident to anybody.
of said date, she was at the dirty kitchen with her aunt [ZZZ] who was then
washing clothes. Her aunt asked her if she had already taken a bath, she Another incident of rape took place on 11 May 1998while [AAA] was again at
replied in the negative. her paternal grandparents’ house. On the said date, she was alone in the
living room on the second floor of the house when accused-appellant called
Her uncle, accused-appellant, overheard their conversation so he her. She did not accede to his bidding because she was scared of him.
volunteered to give [AAA] a bath. Subsequently, he brought her upstairs to Thereafter, he shouted at her and demanded that she come near him, so
the bathroom. she went to him.
While inside the bathroom, accused-appellant told [AAA] to turn around. He brought her inside her grandmother’s bedroom and upon reaching the
After she complied with his directive, he blindfolded her. [AAA] started to room, he immediately blindfolded her and poked a bladed weapon on her
wonder what the accused-appellant was doing so she told him that he was neck. He turned her around three (3) times, removed her shorts and
supposed to give her a bath. Accused-appellant told her that they would play underwear, laid her down the bed, moved on top of her, and inserted his
first for a while. penis in her vagina. Again, the accused-appellant threatened her so she did
not report what had happened.
He turned her around three (3) times and then, removed her shorts and
underwear. After that, he sat on a chair, which was inside the bathroom, and [AAA]’s ordeal did not stop there. She was raped for the fourth time on 28
raised both of her legs. July 1998 at her paternal grandparents’ house.1âwphi1 She and the
accused were incidentally alone in the living room on the second floor of the
Thereafter, she felt him on top of her. She also felt accused-appellant’s house. He asked her to go with him inside the bedroom of her grandparents,
penis enter her vagina which she found painful. but she did not get up from her seat. So accused-appellant pulled her toward
the bedroom. She tried to free herself, but he poked a pointed instrument at
her.
She cried and shouted the name of her aunt, but accused-appellant got
angry and poked a sharp instrument on her neck. [AAA] did not report the
incident because accused-appellant threatened to cut her tongue and to kill Accused-appellant committed the same acts he had perpetrated on [AAA]
her and her mother. during her three [previous] rape incidents: he removed her shorts and
underwear, laid her on the bed, moved on top of her and thereafter, inserted
his penis in her vagina. She was again threatened by the accused-appellant
[AAA] was raped again on 20 March 1998 while she was at the same house not to tell anybody about the incident or else he would cut her tongue and kill
of her paternal grandparents. She was on the terrace on the second floor of her and her mother.
the house when accused-appellant, who was in her grandparents’ bedroom
at that time, called her. She hesitated to go near him because she was afraid
that he might rape her again. The fifth and last incident of rape happened on 09 August 1998. At that time,
[AAA] was at the terrace on the second floor of her paternal grandparents’
house; and accused-appellant also happened to be there. He pulled her and
Accused-appellant then went to the terrace and dragged her to the bedroom brought her inside the room, blindfolded her, and turned her around three (3)
of her grandparents. She could not run anymore nor shout for help because times. He employed the same method in raping her: he removed her shorts
aside from the fact that there was nobody else in the room, accused- and underwear, laid her on the bed and moved on top of her. She tried to
appellant was holding a pointed weapon. push him and raise her shorts and panty, but she did not succeed because
he poked a pointed instrument on her neck. Thereafter, he inserted his penis
While [AAA] and accused-appellant were inside the room, he blindfolded in her vagina. Again, she did not report the incident to anyone because she
her, removed her shorts and underwear, and then laid her down the bed. was scared of his threats.10 (Emphases supplied, citations omitted.)
Thereafter, he moved on top of her and inserted his penis in her vagina.
In contrast, the defense presented four witnesses: AAA’s mother (BBB), Kamuning by her 3 brothers and sister. She filed a case of kidnapping
AAA’s two brothers (DDD and EEE), and Dr. Agnes Aglipay, Regional against his brother [Tito WWW]. [Tito WWW], however, promised to return
Psychiatrist of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. The defense’s her children if she will have the said case dismissed which she did.
statement of the antecedent facts as contained in the Appellant’s Brief is
reproduced here: She denied the allegations that[her] brother-in-law, herein accused, raped
her daughter, [AAA]. In fact, before the filing of the present rape cases there
Accused Milan Roxas denied having raped [AAA] on all the five (5) counts of was one rape case filed on September 22, 1999 which was dismissed
rape. because [AAA] retracted her statements. As told to [BBB] by her daughter
[AAA], she was not raped by herein accused. She told a lie and made the
[DDD], brother of herein private complainant, testified that his aunt in the false accusation against the accused, because she does not want to put the
maternal side, [Tita YYY], induced him by giving toys if he would tell his blame on any of her maternal relatives. [AAA] was greatly indebted to her
father that the accused was raping his sister, [AAA]. Upon prodding of his maternal grandmother and her maternal uncles and aunts because they had
maternal aunt, [DDD],who was only eight (8) years old then, told his father taken care of her since she was three (3) years old.
that he saw the accused rape his sister. His father ran amuck which led to
the filing of the instant case. Dr. Agnes Aglipay, Regional Psychiatrist of the Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology testified that based on her examination of the accused, she
On subsequent days, while [DDD]and [AAA] were in a grocery store buying concluded that he is suffering from a mild mental retardation with a mental
something, their [Tito XXX], [Tito WWW] and [Tita YYY] arrived on board an age of nine (9) to ten (10) years old. She observed that the subject was
FX vehicle. [Tita YYY] told [DDD] that they will be going to buy toys. [DDD] aware that he was being accused of rape, but he had consistently denied the
said that he will first ask permission from his grandfather, but [Tita YYY] said allegations against him.11 (Citations omitted.)
that it would only take a few minutes and they will bring them home
afterwards. [AAA] was brought to SSDD, a place under the administration of The RTC of Quezon City rendered its Judgment on December 11, 2007,
the DSWD, while [DDD] was brought to Caloocan. On the following day, he finding accused-appellant Roxas guilty as charged in each of the five
was brought to Muñoz, in a rented house of his [Tita YYY] and her husband. Informations filed against him. The dispositive portion reads:
[DDD] stayed there for almost a year. He was forbidden to go outside as the
door was always locked. When [his Tita VVV] arrived from Japan they went WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
to Tarlac where his paternal grandmother fetched him. the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in all five (5) counts of rape
as recited in the information[s] and sentences accused MILAN ROXAS:
[EEE], brother of herein private complainant, likewise testified that when [his
Tita VVV] arrived, they went to North Olympus, Quezon City where [his] 1) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967 – to suffer the penalty of
maternal relatives reside. On one occasion, he saw his sister, [AAA] and his reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum
maternal uncle [Tito XXX] entered one of the bedrooms. He tried to open the of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of
door to see what the duo were doing, but it was locked. [EEE] looked for a Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs;
wire and was able to open the door. He saw private complainant on top of
his [TitoXXX], both naked. When the duo saw him, private complainant and
his [Tito XXX] stood up. The latter threatened him not to tell anybody or he 2) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91968 – to suffer the penalty of
will cut off his tongue. reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum
of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs;
On November 26, 1999, [BBB], mother of the private complainant testified
that her two (2) children, [AAA] and [DDD], were missing. She looked for
them, but to no avail. So she went to the police station to have it blottered. 3) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91969 – to suffer the penalty of
Later did she know when she called her sister who resides in Project 6, reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum
Quezon City that [DDD] was brought to Ilocos and [AAA] at the SSDD in
of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of On August 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision,
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs; modifying the Judgment of the RTC as follows:
4) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91970 – to suffer the penalty of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated 11 December
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, in the case
of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of entitled People of the Philippines vs. Milan Roxas y Aguiluz", docketed
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs; and therein as Criminal Case Nos. Q-00-91967 to Q-00-91971, is AFFIRMED
with modification that accused-appellant is ordered to pay private
5) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91971 – to suffer the penalty of complainant on each count civil indemnity in the amount of ₱75,000.00,
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum moral damages in the amount of ₱75,000.00, and exemplary damages in the
of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of amount of ₱30,000.00, for each count of rape.14 Hence, accused-appellant
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs. Roxas interposed this appeal, where he, in his Supplemental Brief,
presented an Additional Assignment of Error:
To credit in favor of the herein accused the full period of his detention in
accordance with law. Resultantly, all pending incidents are deemed moot THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
and academic.12 AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY.15
The RTC held that accused-appellant Roxas is not exempt from criminal
responsibility on the ground that he cannot be considered a minor or an Accused-appellant Roxas claims that the testimony of AAA is replete with
imbecile or insane person, since Dr. Aglipay merely testified that he was an inconsistencies and narrations that are contrary to common experience,
eighteen-year old with a mental development comparable to that of children human nature and the natural course of things.16 Accused-appellant Roxas
between nine to ten years old. The RTC found the testimony of AAA likewise points out that under Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice
credible, and found the testimonies of the defense witnesses to be "flimsy." and Welfare Act of 2006, minors fifteen (15) years old and below are exempt
from criminal responsibility. Accused-appellant Roxas claims that since he
has a mental age of nine years old, he should also be "exempt from criminal
Accused-appellant Roxas elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, where liability although his chronological age at the time of the commission of the
the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03473. Accused-appellant crime was already eighteen years old."17
Roxas submitted the following Assignment of Errors in the appellate court:
In the matter of assigning criminal responsibility, Section 6 of Republic Act
I No. 934418 is explicit in providing that:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen (15) years
AND CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
TESTIMONY. from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
II
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING anniversary of his/her birthdate.
ACCUSEDAPPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF THE CRIME CHARGED.13 A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such
child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with witnesses were not eyewitnesses. A witness can testify only to those facts
this Act. which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from
his own perception, except as provided in the Rules of Court.24 AAA’s
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include mother and brothers were not present when the five rapes allegedly
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with occurred, and therefore any testimony on their part as to whether or not the
existing laws. (Emphasis supplied.) complained acts actually happened is hearsay.
In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability, Section We shall now discuss the criminal liability of accused-appellant Roxas. As
6 clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of one’s birth stated above, the trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
date, and not the mental age as argued by accused-appellant Roxas. When each count of rape.
the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for
construction or interpretation. Only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful The first rape incident was committed in July 1997, and therefore the law
meaning may the court interpret or construe its true intent.19 applicable is Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659 which provides:
On the matter of the credibility of AAA, we carefully examined AAA’s
testimony and found ourselves in agreement with the assessment of the trial ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by
court and the Court of Appeals. As observed by the appellate court: having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
We note that she recounted her ordeal in a logical, straightforward,
spontaneous and frank manner, without any artificialities or pretensions that 1. By using force or intimidation;
would tarnish the veracity of her testimony. She recalled the tragic
experience and positively identified accused-appellant as the one who 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
ravished her on five occasions. Her testimony was unshaken by a grueling unconscious; and
cross-examination and there is no impression whatsoever that the same is a
mere fabrication. For her to come out in the open and publicly describe her
harrowing experience at a trial can only be taken as a badge of her sincerity 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
and the truth of her claims.20 The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
We further underscore that AAA was merely 14 years old at the time she Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or
testified.21 We have repeatedly held that testimonies of child-victims are by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a
minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary xxxx
to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of
tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the with any of the following attendant circumstances:
shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is
not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.22
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
It is likewise axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the victim.
trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor, facial
expression, and manner of testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among
them is telling the truth.23 As the trial court further observed, the defense
The succeeding counts of rape were committed after the effectivity of relationship between AAA and accused-appellant Roxas is considered
Republic Act No. 8353 on October 22,1997, which transported the rape insufficient under present jurisprudence. This Court has thus held:
provision of the Revised Penal Code to Title 8 under Crimes against
Persons, and amended the same to its present wording: However, as regards the allegation in the Information that appellant is an
uncle of the victim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the same did not
Article 266-A. Rape, When And How Committed. — Rape is committed — sufficiently satisfy the requirements of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
i.e., it must be succinctly stated that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is immaterial that appellant admitted
following circumstances: that the victim is his niece. In the same manner, it is irrelevant that "AAA"
testified that appellant is her uncle. We held in People v. Velasquez:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
However, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on accused-
appellant, applying Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659.1âwphi1 We have
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise consistently held that the circumstances under the amendatory provisions of
unconscious; Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the attendance of which could mandate the
imposition of the single indivisible penalty of death, are in the nature of
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in
and the information. Even in cases where such circumstances are proved, the
death penalty cannot be imposed where the information failed to allege
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is them. To impose the death penalty on the basis of a qualifying circumstance
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned which has not been alleged in the information would violate the accused's
above be present. constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him.
Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding

article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. While the informations in this case alleged that accused-appellant is the
uncle of the two victims, they did not state that he is their relative within the
third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. The testimonial evidence that
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two accused-appellant's wife and Luisa de Guzman are sisters is immaterial. The
or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. circumstance that accused-appellant is a relative of the victims by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree must be alleged in the
xxxx information. In the case at bar, the allegation that accused-appellant is the
uncle of private complainants was not sufficient to satisfy the special
qualifying circumstance of relationship. It was necessary to specifically
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
allege that such relationship was within the third civil degree. Hence,
with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape on two counts, for
which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua in each case.25
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
In the case at bar, the allegation that AAA was accused-appellant Roxas’s
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
"niece" in each Information is therefore insufficient to constitute the
victim[.]
qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. Instead, the applicable
qualifying circumstance is that of the use of a deadly weapon, for which the
While it appears that the circumstance of minority under Article 335 (old rape penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Since there was no other aggravating
provision) and Article 266-B was sufficiently proven, the allegation of the circumstance alleged in the Information and proven during the trial, the
imposed penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape is nonetheless

proper even as we overturn the lower courts’ appreciation of the qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship.
For consistency with prevailing jurisprudence, we reduce the awards of civil

indemnity and moral damages to ₱50,000.00 each, for each count of rape.
The award of exemplary damages in the amount of ₱30,000.00 for each
count, on the other hand, is in line with recent
jurisprudence.26 WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03473 dated August 16, 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages
awarded to the complainant are reduced to ₱50,000.00 each, for each count
of rape, plus legal interest upon the amounts of indemnity and damages
awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice
G.R. No. 208013, July 03, 2017 unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA, 14 years old,
with a mental age of a 5[-]year[-]old [child], against her will and without her
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGAR ALLAN consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CORPUZ Y FLORES, Accused-Appellant.
CONTRARY to Art. 266-A, par. 1, in rel. to Art. 266-B, 6th par., as amended
by R.A. 8353.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. V-1135
LEONEN, J.:
That sometime before November 1, 2002 at Brgy. Puelay, Villasis,
An intellectually disabled person is not, solely by this reason, ineligible from Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
testifying in court.1 "He or she can be a witness, depending on his or her named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and
ability to relate what he or she knows."2 If an intellectually disabled victim's there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA,
testimony is coherent, it is admissible in court.3 14 years old, with a mental age of a 5[-]year[-]old [child], against her will and
without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
This Court resolves this appeal4 filed by Edgar Allan Corpuz y Flores
(Allan)5 from the November 9, 2012 Decision6 of the Court of Appeals in CA- CONTRARY to Art. 266-A, par. 1, in rel. to Art. 266-B, 6th par., as amended
G.R. CR HC No. 04977. by R.A. 8353.
The assailed Decision affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling that Allan Criminal Case No. V-1136
was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of Simple Rape of
AAA7, a mental retardate (intellectually disabled) with a mental age of five (5) That sometime in December, 2002 at Brgy. Puelay, Villasis, Pangasinan and
years and eight (8) months.8 within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by
means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
Allan was charged with four (4) counts of rape in Branch 50, Regional Trial unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA, 14 years old,
Court, Villasis, Pangasinan.9 The charging portions of the Informations read: with a mental age of a 5[-]year[-]old [child], against her will and without her
consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Criminal Case No. V-1123 CONTRARY to Art. 266-A, par. 1, in rel. to Art. 266-B, 6th paragraph, as
amended by R.A. 8353.10 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
That sometime in November, 2002 at Brgy. Puelay, Villasis, Pangasinan and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by
means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, Upon arraignment, Allan pleaded not guilty to the charges.11
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA, 14 years old,
with a mental age of a 5[-]year[-]old [child], against her will and without her Joint trial on the merits ensued.12 The prosecution presented the following as
consent, to her damage and prejudice. witnesses: AAA's mother, BBB; AAA's older sister, CCC; AAA's uncle, GGG;
AAA's aunt by affinity, EEE; Dr. Gloria Araos-Liberato (Dr. Araos-Liberato);
CONTRARY to Art. 266-A, par. 1, in rel. to Art. 266-B, 6th par., as amended Brenda Tablizo (Tablizo); SPO1 Diosdado Macaraeg (SPO1 Macaraeg); Dr.
by R.A. 8353. Rachel Acosta (Dr. Acosta); and AAA.
Criminal Case No. V-1134 BBB testified that her sister-in law, DDD, told her on March 2, 2003 that AAA
was raped.13 BBB found out from a psychiatrist that it was Allan who raped
That sometime in October, 2002 at Brgy. Puelay, Villasis, Pangasinan and her daughter.14 She revealed that Allan had also raped CCC.15 However, that
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by case was settled since Allan was her brother-in-law.16
means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
CCC affirmed that sometime in 2002, AAA allegedly informed her that she Since the defense stipulated to admit her purported statements and the
was not having her period. She advised AAA to "drink something bitter" and existence of the Medico Legal Certificate, her testimony was dispensed
to ask their aunt EEE about her condition. At that time, CCC found out that with.37
AAA was pregnant.17
Brenda Tablizo, a Psychologist II of the National Bureau of Investigation,
EEE18 who lived near AAA's house,19 averred that in the morning of February Manila, testified that she conducted AAA's neuropsychiatric examination and
14, 2003, AAA entered her house while drinking from a cup.20 EEE asked evaluation on February 26, 2003 upon the request of Agent Gerald Geralde
what AAA was consuming.21 AAA responded that it "was something to (Agent Geralde) of the National Bureau of Investigation, Dagupan City.38
induce menstruation. "22
Tablizo identified the March 6, 2003 Report that she had sent to Agent
AAA then asked EEE to massage her aching stomach.23 When EEE was Geralde,39 which stated that:
about to do so, she observed that it was noticeably bulging.24 AAA began to
cry, confessing that she thought she was pregnant.25 AAA had a mental age of five (5) years and eight (8) months and an IQ of
42. Her intelligence level was equivalent to Moderate Mental Retardation.
At that time, AAA's parents were in Baguio City, so EEE called AAA's uncle
GGG instead.26 When GGG arrived, AAA was still crying27 when she told She also found AAA to be an egocentric and self-centered individual and
them, "Inkastanak ni Allan, " pertaining to Allan.28 had difficulty in her interpersonal relations. Poor impulse control was likewise
evident in her.40
GGG brought AAA to Asingan Community Hospital29 and to the police
station to enter the incident in the police blotter.30 Tablizo testified that AAA told her that Allan "inserted his penis into her
organ" (inserrek na dadiay boto na kaniak)41 during an interview.
GGG attested that his sister-in-law EEE called him on February 14,
2003.31 When he arrived at EEE's house, he saw AAA crying.32 He found out SPO1 Diosdado Macaraeg was a policeman in Villasis, Pangasinan, who
that AAA was pregnant.33 presented an excerpt from the police blotter.42
When he confirmed AAA's pregnancy through a medical examination, EEE AAA underwent another neuropsychiatric examination before taking the
told him that AAA was raped by Allan.34 witness stand.43
After entering the incident in the police blotter, he also reported it to the Dr. Rachel Acosta testified that she had examined AAA's mental status
National Bureau of Investigation, Dagupan City.35 including her "mental, behavioral and emotional conditions and her manner
of communication]." She found that AAA had a "mild degree of mental
Dr. Araos-Liberato, the Medical Officer III of Medicare Community Hospital in retardation" and an Intelligence Quotient of 70.44
Asingan, Pangasinan issued the Medico Legal Certificate, which stated that
AAA was 14 years old on February 14, 2003 when she was examined. Her Although AAA was already 19 years old at the time of examination, her
findings provided: mental age was that of a child aged five (5) to seven (7) years.45 She
observed that:
1. Healed hymenal lacerations at 11:00, 5:00 and 2:00 o'clock
position. (sic) AAA's "manner of speech is quite incomprehensible in some words only but
2. Hymenal orifice admits two (2) fingertips. most of the simple words are well spoken but some words that are being
3. Pregnancy test (+) corresponds to three (3) to four (4) months [a]ge spoken with slur and slang manner and defective phonation. It seems that
of gestation.36 there is an air coming out from the nose when she talks."
[She] concluded that AAA was fit to testify as a witness depending on her

emotional condition when she testifies although she was "not oriented to
time, date and place." Her degree of honesty was great because, with Dela Cruz detailed every procedure that she followed beginning with DNA
mental age of 5 to 7 years old, she does not know what is right or extraction and analysis using "a fully automated genetic analyzer (ABI 310
wrong.46 (Emphasis supplied) genetic analyzer)" until the printing of the resulting electropherogram, which
had the DNA profiles of Allan, AAA, and XXX. She affirmed that the
AAA was already 20 years old on May 21, 2008 when she testified.47 She comparison of their DNA profiles revealed a "100% proof that the accused is
confirmed that XXX was her four (4)-year-old child.48 the biological father of XXX."62
She identified Allan as XXX's father. She also confirmed that Allan was the Forensic Chemist Mary Ann Aranas conducted a confirmatory test, which
man she was referring to when the prosecutor pointed at Allan.49 affirmed the test result of the DNA paternity test.63
AAA was asked how Allan became XXX's father. She responded, "Iniyot Through a Joint Decision,64 the Regional Trial Court convicted Allan of four
nak, sir. " (He had sex with me, sir.) She attested that when she was 13 (4) counts of Simple Rape on March 29, 2011.
years old, Allan had sex with her on four (4) occasions, each of which he
gave her money.50 The trial court ruled that AAA's testimony was "categorical, straight forward
and credible."65 Since it was already established that the victim was
On the other hand, Allan and his daughter, Almeda Corpuz-Generosa intellectually disabled,66 it would be unlikely for her to fabricate the
(Almeda), testified for the defense.51 The testimony of Almeda was accusations against Allan.67
dispensed with after the prosecution agreed to accept her proposed
testimony.52 She testified that when she asked AAA about her pregnancy, As confirmed by Dr. Acosta, AAA's degree of honesty was great.
AAA failed to disclose who impregnated her.53 Considering her mental age, she did not know how to decipher right from
wrong. Thus, her simple recount of events showed her "honesty and
Allan denied the accusations and insisted that all the charges against him naivet[é]."68
were merely fabricated by AAA's father, FFF.54 He allegedly sacked FFF as
a truck driver in his sand and gravel business in 2001 for allowing his son to The trial court also ruled that AAA's healed hymenal lacerations, pregnancy,
drive the truck that led to an accident.55 and delivery of a child adequately substantiated carnal knowledge. Similarly,
AAA's categorical identification of Allan as the offender was corroborated by
FFF allegedly also reported to the police that Allan had illegal drugs in his the testimonies of EEE, GGG, and Tablizo.69
place,56 which caused his incarceration for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs on January 2, 2002.57 He was later acquitted of the charge.58 Furthermore, the DNA paternity test result "sealed the case for the
prosecution."70 The dispositive portion of the decision read:
Upon motion before the trial court, the defense applied for Deoxyribonucleic
Acid (DNA) paternity test, which was granted on April 20, 2009.59 WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
accused Edgar Allan Corpuz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the four
Forensic Biologist III Demelen dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) and Forensic Chemist I (4) counts of simple rape charged, committed against [AAA], a mental
Gemma Shiela Orbeta of the National Bureau of Investigation, Manila, took retardate with a mental age equivalent to a five (5)[-]year[-]and[-] eight (8)
biological samples such as buccal swab and blood from Allan, AAA, and [-]month[-]old child, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
XXX in open court. This was done in the presence of Assistant Provincial reclusion perpetua for each count and to pay the offended party P50,000.00
Prosecutor Rodelle T. Beltran and defense counsel Atty. Cecile S. Tomboc as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages in each case.
on May 19, 2009. Frederick Panlilio of the National Bureau of Investigation
Photo Laboratory took photos of the whole proceedings.60 SO ORDERED.71
On March 3, 2010, the defense presented Dela Cruz as an expert witness. In his appeal, Allan insisted that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
She testified that part of her duties as a forensic biologist was to conduct doubt because the records were bereft of any credible proof indicating that
DNA paternity tests.61 he raped AAA four (4) times. AAA failed to testify when and where she was
raped as she was not oriented with place, date, and time.72
testified, she was raped when she was 13 years old but her first menstrual
In its November 9, 2012 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed Allan's period was when she was 14 years old.85 Allegedly, AAA was inconsistent in
conviction.73 The Court of Appeals held that carnal knowledge of an her testimony because when she was interviewed, she did not know who
intellectually disabled person is rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of raped her.86 Despite this, however, the trial court still relied on AAA's
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.74 Evidence testimony.87
of force or intimidation is not important since the victim is incapable of giving
her consent.75 He argues that the DNA paternity test result's confirmation that he is the
father of AAA's child is insufficient on its own for his conviction.88 He then
It affirmed the trial court's ruling that AAA's testimony was credible. Her assails the accuracy of the DNA test result claiming that:
positive identification of the accused and the narration of the sordid acts
committed against her sufficed.76 The record shows that Forensic Biologist, Delemen Dela Cruz did not state
that she personally collected the biological specimens and neither did she
Additionally, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses adequately mention that she put tamper tape on the collected specimens. She merely
supported Allan's conviction. Even without the results of the DNA paternity stated that they used mask and gloves when they collected the specimens;
test, "the degree of proof to convict [him] beyond reasonable doubt was placed the same in a tube; put it inside a white envelope; and thereafter
sufficiently established by the prosecution."77 Thus, sealed it to [e]nsure that the specimens will not be contaminated. There was
no showing that she thoroughly inspected the samples for tampering nor
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Villasis, was there explanation as to what she did with the specimens while these
Pangasinan, Branch 50 in Criminal Cases Nos. V-1123, V-1134, V-1135 & were in their custody.
V-1136 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
Forensic chemist Gemma Madera, who collected biological samples from
Costs de oficio. their subjects and examined the same was not presented by the
prosecution. There is, thus, uncertainty in the DNA evidence and the
SO ORDERED.78 (Emphasis in the original) probability of contamination and error is great.89 (Citations omitted)
Hence, an appeal before this Court was filed. He concludes that since his guilt was not established with moral certainty, he
should be presumed innocent.90
On July 1, 2013,79 the Court of Appeals elevated to this Court the records of
this case pursuant to its Resolution80 dated January 2, 2013, which gave due On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the
course to the Notice of Appeal81 filed by Allan. prosecution was able to prove Allan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.91 Dr.
Acosta's testimony on AAA's healed lacerations, as well as AAA's pregnancy
In the Resolution82 dated September 4, 2013, this Court noted the records of and consequent delivery, conclusively confirmed that Allan had carnal
the case forwarded by the Court of Appeals. The parties were then ordered knowledge of AAA.92 This is substantiated by AAA's "clear, straightforward
to file their supplemental briefs, should they so desired, within 30 days from and categorical testimony," and her positive identification of the offender.93
notice.
AAA's mental state was also undisputed.94 Hence, it is unlikely that AAA
On November 5, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a would fabricate the charges against Allan.95 Thus,
Manifestation on behalf of the People of the Philippines stating that it would
no longer file a supplemental brief.83 A similar Manifestation84 was filed by A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit
the Public Attorney's Office on behalf of Allan. having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her
private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention
The sole issue for resolution is whether Allan's guilt was proven beyond the trauma and the scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped
reasonable doubt. and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by
the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her.
Allan insists that he could not have impregnated AAA because, as she has
Moreover, the court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim man had carnal knowledge with a woman, or a person sexually assaulted
in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.96 (Citation another, under any of the following circumstances:"104
omitted)
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
The Office of the Solicitor General underscores that Allan's denial of the
charges cannot subdue the prosecution's positive and direct b) The victim is deprived of reason;
testimonies.97 His allegation that AAA's father fabricated the charges against
him is "merely self-serving and absurd."98 As found by the trial court, there c) The victim is unconscious;
were no apparent indications that AAA's father had ill-feelings against Allan
since AAA's father was able to buy a truck for his own business."99 Even d) By means of fraudulent machination;
assuming that AAA's father had ill motives against Allan, it is still e) By means of grave abuse of authority;
unbelievable for him to make a story "that will expose his own daughter to
public ridicule just to exact vengeance." 100 f) When the victim is under 12 years of age; or
Furthermore, the defense cannot question the results of the DNA paternity g) When the victim is demented.105
test.101 Its failure to question the dependability of the DNA testing's
methodology is deemed a waiver on its part.102 In this case, the sexual congresses between Allan and AAA were clearly
established by the victim's testimony. Apart from identifying her offender,
The appeal lacks merit. AAA was also able to recount the sordid acts committed against her.
I
Q At the present time how old are you?
A I'm 20 years old[,] sir.
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
8353,103 provides: Q Do you have a child?
Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. — Rape is Committed — A Yes, sir.
1 By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of Q What is the name of your child?
) the following circumstances:
A [XXX],106 sir.
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise Q By the way, is your child a male or a female?
unconscious; A Female[,] sir.
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
Q And how old is she now?
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above A She is now four (4) years old[,] sir.
be present.
Q Who is the father of [XXX] ?
2 By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
) paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting A Allan [,] sir.
his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument
or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Q When you say Allan, are you referring to Allan Corpuz the accused in
these cases?
To warrant a rape conviction under Article 266-A, it should be shown that "a
A Yes, sir. Q You consented because he gave you money then?

Q And the Allan whom you are referring to is he? (the government A Yes, sir.
prosecutor pointing to accused Allan Corpuz).
Q And do you recall how much he gave you when he had sex with
A Yes, sir. you?
Q You said last time that Allan is your cousin? A [P]100.00, [P]150.00[,] sometimes [P]250.00[,] sir.107 (Emphasis
provided)
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, what did Allan do to you that made (him) the father of your Moreover, the sexual congresses between Allan and AAA was corroborated
daughter? by the Medico Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Araos-Liberato which showed
the presence of healed hymenal lacerations at 11:00, 5:00, and 2:00
A "Iniyot nak[,] sir" (he had sex with me). positions.108 Healed or fresh hymenal lacerations "are the best physical
evidence of forcible defloration."109
Q How many times did Allan ha[ve] sex with you?
A Four (4) times, sir. The gravamen of rape under Article 266-A (1) is carnal knowledge of "a
woman against her will or without her consent."110 Undoubtedly, sexual
Q How old were you then when Allan had sex with you? intercourse with an intellectually disabled person is rape since proof of force
or intimidation becomes needless as the victim is incapable of giving
A I was 13 years old, sir. consent to the act.111
Q And he had sex with you according to you for four (4) times?
AAA's intellectual disability was undisputed and well substantiated by the
A Yes, sir. testimonies of Tablizo and Dr. Acosta.112 The defense did not even contest
her condition.113
Q And because Allan had sex with you 4 times that is the reason why
you gave birth to your daughter [XXX]? AAA was 14 years old when she had her neuropsychiatric examination with
Tablizo. The examination revealed that at the time of examination, AAA's
A Yes, sir, for 3 months. Intelligence Quotient was 42 and her level of intelligence was equal to
Q Your daughter [XXX] has resemblance with Allan? Moderate Mental Retardation.114 Also, she had a mental age of a five (5)-
year-and-eight (8)-month-old child.115
A Yes, sir.
AAA underwent another mental status examination with Dr. Acosta before
Q Where is [XXX] now? being presented as a witness. The examination revealed that she had a
"mild degree of mental retardation."116 AAA "belonged to sub-average
A At home[,] sir.
intellectual with an IQ of 70."117 Although AAA was already 19 years old at
Q How old is [XXX] now? that time, her mental age was that of a child aged five (5) to seven (7)
years.118
A She is 4 years old[,] sir.
For this reason, Allan's acts amounted to rape under Article 266-A 1(d) of
Q You said a while ago that Allan had sex with you. My question is, the Revised Penal Code, as amended.119
did you consent to have sex with Allan?
A Yes, sir. Article 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:
If a woman above 12 years old has a mental age of a child below 12, the
.... accused remains liable for rape even if the victim acceded to the sordid
acts.126 The reason behind the rule "is simply that if sexual intercourse with a
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is victim under twelve years of age is rape, it must thereby follow that carnal
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be knowledge of a woman whose mental age is that of a child below twelve
present. (Emphasis provided) years should likewise be constitutive of rape."127
In People v. Quintos y Badilla,120 this Court emphasized that the conditions II

under Article 266-A should be construed in the light of one's capacity to give
consent.121 Similarly, this Court clarified that an intellectually disabled person
is not automatically deprived of reason.122 Thus, To qualify as a witness, the basic test is "whether he [or she] can perceive
and, perceiving, can make known his [or her] perception to others."128 Rule
We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual disability," 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
had been classified under "deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of
reason" and "demented", however, should be differentiated from the term, Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next
"mentally retarded" or "intellectually disabled." An intellectually disabled succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
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 Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
peers. Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the immaturity. — The following persons cannot be witnesses:
"socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social
responsibility."123 (Emphasis provided, citations omitted)
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for
examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making
In Quintos, this Court also clarified that one's capacity to give consent
known their perception to others;
depends upon his or her mental age and not on his or her chronological
age.124
Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of
is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating
chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. Both are considered them truthfully. (Emphasis provided)
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 Therefore, an intellectually disabled person is not, solely by this reason,
rational decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making ineligible from testifying in court.129 "He or she can be a witness, depending
is a function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows."130 If an intellectually
to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is disabled victim's testimony is coherent, it is admissible in court.131
determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her
mental age. Therefore, in determining whether a person is "twelve (12) Notwithstanding AAA's intellectual disability, she is qualified to take the
years of age" under Article 266-A (1) (d), the interpretation should be in witness stand. A person with low Intelligence Quotient may still perceive and
accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not is capable of making known his or her perception to others.
suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability
is established.125 (Emphasis provided) Given that AAA's qualification as a witness is already settled, AAA's mental
state also does not prevent her from being a credible witness.132 In sustaining a conviction for rape, "the victim's testimony must be clear and
free from contradictions."141 This is indispensable because in this kind of
The credibility as a witness of an intellectually disabled person is upheld offenses, "conviction or acquittal virtually depends entirely on the credibility
provided that she is capable and consistent in narrating her experience. of the complainant's narration since usually, only the participants can testify
In People v. Monticalvo y Magno:133 as to its occurrence."142
Emphasis must be given to the fact that the competence and credibility of Generally, the issue in rape cases involves credibility.143 As "regards the
mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court credibility of witnesses, th[is] Court usually defers to the findings of the trial
where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and court, absent a strong and cogent reason to disregard [them]."144
consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's
accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone Examination of the witnesses' demeanor during trial is essential "especially
as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on in rape cases because it helps establish the moral conviction that an
the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged."145 In trial,
of the accused.134 (Emphasis provided) judges are given the opportunity "to detect, consciously or unconsciously,
observable cues and microexpressions that could, more than the words said
Furthermore, Dr. Acosta explicitly stated that "[AAA's] degree of honesty is and taken as a whole, suggest sincerity or betray lies and ill will."146 These
great" despite her condition. indispensable matters can never be mirrored in documents, as well as in
objects used as proof.147
[AAA's] degree of honesty is "great" because, with her mental age, she does
not know what is right or wrong. Indeed, in light of her mental state, [AAA's] In this case, the trial court found AAA's testimony as "categorical,
simple narration of what happened to her is indicative of her honesty and straightforward and credible."148 Similarly, the Court of Appeals emphasized
naivet[é].135 (Citation omitted) that it was already enough that AAA was able to identify her offender, as well
as the sordid acts committed against her.149 Thus, this Court has no reason
Moreover, it would be unlikely for AAA to fabricate charges against to disturb these findings. The evaluation of the credibility of a witness is "best
Allan.136 When there is no proof showing that the witness was moved by any left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses
improper motive, his or her identification of the offender as the perpetrator of and their demeanor during the trial."150 This Court gives great respect to the
the crime shall be upheld.137 findings of trial courts, and more so when they are affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.151
In affirming the finding of the accused's guilt, this Court is aware that "when
a woman says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is IV
necessary to show that she had indeed been raped."138 If her testimony
withstands the test of credibility, like in this case, "the rapist may be
adjudged guilty solely on that basis."139 The discrepancies pertaining to "minor details and not in actuality touching
upon the central fact of the crime" do not prejudice AAA's credibility.152 Thus,
Therefore, Allan cannot exculpate himself, claiming that his guilt was not "[i]nstead of weakening [her] testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to
proven beyond reasonable doubt since AAA was allegedly not oriented to strengthen [her] credibility because they discount the possibility of their
date, time, and place. AAA's failure to offer any testimony as to when and being rehearsed."153
where she was raped140 does not matter. This Court underscores that the
date, place, and time of the incidents need not be accurately established Admittedly, based on Dr. Acosta's findings, AAA was "not oriented to time,
since these are not elements of rape. date and place."154 For this reason, it is expected that there might be slight
contradictions in her testimony as a result of her intellectual disability.
III
A perusal of the alleged contradictions in AAA's testimony shows that they
merely pertain to trivial details. Hence, whether Allan impregnated AAA does
not matter since the elements of rape were already proven. Assailing AAA's tandem repeats); and the most recent which is known as the PCR-
pregnancy does not disprove that he had carnal knowledge of her. ([polymerase] chain reaction) based STR (short tandem repeats) method
which, as of 1996, was availed of by most forensic laboratories in the world.
V PCR is the process of replicating or copying DNA in an evidence sample a
million times through repeated cycling of a reaction involving the so-called
DNA polymerize enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takes measurements in
"DNA is the fundamental building block of a person's entire genetic make-up. 13 separate places and can match two (2) samples with a reported
[It] is found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same theoretical error rate of less than one (1) in a trillion.
person. Genetic identity is [however] unique. Hence, a person's DNA profile
can determine his identity."155 Just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, "matches" are determined. To
illustrate, when DNA or fingerprint tests are done to identify a suspect in a
In resolving a crime, an evidence sample is "collected from the scene of the criminal case, the evidence collected from the crime scene is compared with
crime or from the victim's body for the suspect's DNA."156 This sample is the "known " print. If a substantial amount of the identifying features are the
"then matched with the reference sample taken from the suspect and the same, the DNA or fingerprint is deemed to be a match. But then, even if only
victim."157 DNA testing is made to "ascertain whether an association exists one feature of the DNA or fingerprint is different, it is deemed not to have
between the evidence sample and the reference sample."158 Hence, the come from the suspect.
collected samples "are subjected to various chemical processes to establish
their profile" which may provide any of these three (3) possible results:159 As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations between
people. In each of these regions, a person possesses two genetic types
called "allele", one inherited from each parent. In [a] paternity test, the
1) The samples are different and therefore must have originated from forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable regions in an
different sources (exclusion). This conclusion is absolute and requires no individual to produce a DNA profile. Comparing next the DNA profiles
further analysis or discussion; of the mother and child, it is possible to determine which half of the
2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the child's DNA was inherited from the mother. The other half must have
samples have similar DNA types (inconclusive). This might occur for a been inherited from the biological father. The alleged father's profile is
variety of reasons including degradation, contamination, or failure of then examined to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his
some aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the analysis might then be profile, which match the paternal types in the child. If the man's DNA
repeated with the same or a different sample, to obtain a more types do not match that of the child, the man is excluded as the father. If the
conclusive result; or DNA types match, then he is not excluded as the father.162 (Emphasis
provided, citations omitted)
3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same
source (inclusion). In such a case, the samples are found to be similar, Based on the result of the DNA test conducted in this case, Allan is
the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the disputably presumed to be the child's father.
similarity.160
The DNA testing result shows that "[t]here is a COMPLETE MATCH in all of
The nature of a DNA analysis in determining paternity is explained the fifteen (15) loci tested using the Powerflex 16 System between the
in Herrera v. Alba:161 alleles of Edgar Allan F. Corpuz and [XXX]." Based on the findings, "there is
a 99.9999% Probability of Paternity that Edgar Allan F. Corpuz is the
biological father of [XXX].163 (Emphasis provided, citation omitted)
How is DNA typing performed? From a DNA sample obtained or extracted, a
molecular biologist may proceed to analyze it in several ways. There are five
This is in conformity with Section 9 of the Rule on DNA Evidence which
(5) techniques to conduct DNA typing. They are: the RFLP (restriction
reads:
fragment length polymorphism); "reverse dot blot" or HLA DQ a/Pm loci
which was used in 287 cases that were admitted as evidence by 37 courts in
the U.S. as of November 1994; mtDNA process; VNTR (variable number
Section 9. Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. — In evaluating the results of experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be
DNA testing, the court shall consider the following: properly established; and
(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.
(a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance
of mismatching DNA evidence;
The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence
(b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other shall apply suppletorily.
evidence presented in the case; and that
Section 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. — In evaluating whether
(c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be
the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall consider the
conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of
following:
Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be
considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability
of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable (a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the
presumption of paternity.(Emphasis provided) theory or technique can be and has been tested;
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or
However, the court should still assess the probative value of the DNA methods;
evidence considering, among others, the following:
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant
[H]ow the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of scientific community;
contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in (d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the
conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the correctness of data generated;
tests.164 (e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and
Hence, Sections 7 and 8 of the Rule on DNA Evidence165 specifically provide (f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical
for the considerations in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence: calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and
limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.
Section 7. Assessment of Probative Value of DNA Evidence. — In
assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court To emphasize, it is the defense that moved for a DNA testing.166 It failed to
shall consider the following: assail the result and the dependability of the procedure before the trial
court.167 It is only now that it is questioning the test's accuracy given that the
(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were results are not favorable to it. For this reason, this Court agrees with the
collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of Court of Appeals that the defense is already "estopped from questioning,
the samples; much less, objecting the reliability of the DNA testing methodology
conducted on the specimens submitted."168
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the The testimonies of the victim and other prosecution witnesses have
procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in sufficiently established Allan's guilt. Even without the favorable results of the
conducting the tests; DNA test, which simply corroborated the fact that Allan had carnal
knowledge of the victim, there was enough proof to convict Allan of the
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable charges.169
standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant Furthermore, Allan's defense of denial cannot overcome AAA's positive
identification of the accused.170 A denial is "inherently weak and crumbles in

the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on
affirmative matters that appellant was at the scene of the crime and was the
victim's assailant."171
Rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua.172 Under Article 266(10) of the

Revised Penal Code, rape is qualified "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."173 This qualifying
circumstance should be particularly alleged in the Information.174 A mere
assertion of the victim's mental deficiency is not enough.175 For this reason,
Allan can only be convicted of four (4) counts of rape under Article 266-A
1(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.176
In accordance with People v. Jugueta,177 where this Court clarified that

"when the circumstances of the crime call for the imposition of reclusion
perpetua only, the civil indemnity and moral damages should be P75,000.00
each, as well as exemplary damages in the amount of
P75,000.00."178 Hence, the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and
exemplary damages are each increased to P75,000.00 for each count of
rape.
WHEREFORE, Edgar Allan Corpuz y Flores is found GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape under Article 266-A 1(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. He is ordered to pay AAA the
awards of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and
P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.
Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all
damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully
paid.179
SO ORDERED.
Peralta,** (Acting Chairperson), Mendoza, and Martires, JJ., concur.

Carpio, (Chairperson), J., on official leave.

Mental Incapacity Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mental Incapacity Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mental Incapacity Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 MENTAL INCAPACITY

That afternoon, Clara Mina was seated on top of a trunk

knowledge of a woman deprived of reason. The deprivation of reason

Being feeble-minded, complainant is incapable of thinking and reasoning like

That complainant possesses such a low mental capacity,

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and

On March 16, 1976, in the evening, after dinner, Estelita Ronaya

A "You come and we will have sexual intercourse," he said.

and her mother.

A I struggled and cried.

Q What did the accused do after that?

A He had sexual intercourse with me.

A I was wearing pants, sir.

Q Aside from the pants, do you have any underwear?

A Yes, sir, I have a panty.

A He removed them, sir.

A He inserted his private part inside my vagina.

A He unbuttoned his pants and unfastened the zipper of his pants.

A I saw his penis.

A No more, sir, he sat down.

A Since he was stronger, he succeeded doing what he wanted to get.

Q After that where did you go?

and the following conclusions:

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, except

Accordingly, we must reject the insanity defense of appellant Rafanan.

In People vs. Puno (supra), the Court ruled that schizophrenic reaction,

[G.R. No. 113791. February 22, 1996.]

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The accusatory portion

v. Buncad, 34 quoting from Wheeler v. United States, 35 and reiterated in

G.R. No. 198240 July 3, 2013

G.R. No. 199740, March 24, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JERRY damages and of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Private complainant “AAA” provided a clear, convincing and competent xxxx

However, it must be mentioned that appellant is not eligible for parole

The awards of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil

Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, and Reyes,* JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 200793 June 4, 2014

3. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91969:

Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding

imposed penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape is nonetheless

For consistency with prevailing jurisprudence, we reduce the awards of civil

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

[She] concluded that AAA was fit to testify as a witness depending on her

A Yes, sir. Q You consented because he gave you money then?

In People v. Quintos y Badilla,120 this Court emphasized that the conditions II

identification of the accused.170 A denial is "inherently weak and crumbles in

Rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua.172 Under Article 266(10) of the

In accordance with People v. Jugueta,177 where this Court clarified that

WHEREFORE, Edgar Allan Corpuz y Flores is found GUILTY beyond

Peralta,** (Acting Chairperson), Mendoza, and Martires, JJ., concur.

You might also like