G.R. No. L-47437. September 29, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GAMELO MARIANO Y OBUSAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
ESCOLIN, J.:
Appeal from the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte,
finding Gamelo Mariano y Obusan
guilty of the crime of rape committed upon a woman of unsound and feeble mind,
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to indemnify the offended party in the
amount of P12,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
Socorro Soria, a demented woman of 24 years, had been confined as a
mental patient at the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong,
Manila, since February 26, 1971 up to May 3, 1974 when she was transferred to
the Don Susano J. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital in Pili, Camarines Sur for further treatment.
On May 26, 1975, her parents brought her home to Burabod, Daet, Camarines Norte, to be treated by the appellant, known in the locality as a faith healer or
“spiritista“.
In the afternoon of September
25, 1976, appellant
went to the residence of the Sorias to treat
Socorro. After securing some “salonpas” from Mrs. Maria Soria,
mother of Socorro, he entered the room of his patient, and locked the door.
Shortly after, Mrs. Soria, who was attending to her customers at the rice mill
adjacent to her house, was informed by her daughter-in-law Elizabeth Albino Soria, that the door of Socorro’s room was locked. Mrs. Soria
proceeded to the room and when she noted that the door was indeed locked from
inside, she and Elizabeth peeped through a small aperture and saw the appellant on top of
Socorro in the act of sexual intercourse.
Appellant had his pants off, while Socorro was naked from the waist
down. Mrs. Soria
immediately clambered to the top shelf of the cabinet which
served as the dividing wall between Socorro’s room and the sala,
and stretching herself across the top of the cabinet, she reached out and
grabbed the appellant’s hair. [This was
demonstrated by Mrs. Soria during the ocular
inspection conducted at the scene of the incident]. Jolted by the sudden intrusion, appellant
stood up, with his penis still erect. He hastily put on his clothes, opened the
door of the room, and attempted to run, but his path was blocked by Elizabeth. When
Mrs. Soria confronted him, appellant expressed
his willingness to be Socorro’s husband and promised to construct an annex to
his house where he would keep Socorro as his wife.
Socorro was forthwith
brought to the Camarines Norte Provincial Hospital, where she was examined by Dra. Amelia Paguirigan. The latter’s findings are as follows:
–
Abrasions, over both lower part of mucosa of
labia majora.
– Hymenal tear, 6 o’clock,
2 o’clock and 9 o’clock position.
–
Vaginal intritus
admits 1 finger loosely.
–
Vaginal smear and emusion
for sperm cells – negative.
In his defense, appellant
denied having had any sexual intercourse with Socorro at any time since he began treating her
sometime in July 1976. He declared that
one week before September 25, 1976, he informed Mrs. Soria
that her daughter’s mental illness was beyond his capacity to cure; that he
recommended that Socorro be referred to another faith healer from San Pablo;
that despite his recommendation, Mrs. Soria on September
25, 1976 had him fetched by her nephew to continue with the treatment of
Socorro; that because of Mrs. Soria’s call, he went
to the Soria’s residence, but he entered Socorro’s
room only after he had asked the permission of her mother; and that after
performing the necessary treatment, he immediately proceeded home.
On September
27, 1976, a verified
complaint for rape, signed by Mrs. Maria Soria, was
filed against appellant before the Municipal Court of Daet,
Camarines Norte.
On the basis thereof, an information was filed before
the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte.
We sustain the trial
court’s conclusion that “the evidence regarding the commission of the
offense by the appellant is overwhelming.” No less than the victim‘s mother testified that she had caught
appellant having carnal intercourse with Socorro. Indeed, Mrs. Soria
could not have given false testimony and thus expose her daughter to public
ridicule and disgrace, if she was not motivated by her maternal desire to
vindicate her daughter’s honor.
The positive declaration
of Mrs. Soria that her daughter was sexually abused
by appellant finds corroboration in the testimony of the examining physician, Dra. Paguirigan, who found “hymenal tears at 6 o’clock, 2 ‘clock and 9 o’clock positions.” These lacerations of the
hymen constitute indubitable proof of penetration of the male organ into the
labia of the pudendum”.[1]
That Socorro was a
demented woman is not disputed by appellant, as the latter even admitted that
Socorro’s mental illness was beyond his capability to cure. Moreover, Dra.
Amelia Paguirigan described the victim as a
“known psychotic, violent type and resisting examination, talking
nonsense,” while Dr. Edgardo Bengzon
of the National Mental Hospital diagnosed her ailment as “schizophrenia
chronic.” [Exhibit B].
It is settled in this
jurisdiction that an accused who has carnal knowledge with a mentally retarded
or demented woman is guilty of rape[2] the reason being that she is incapable of
giving rational consent to the sexual intercourse.[3]
Appellant further argues
that the court a quo did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case because the victim’s mother had no right or
authority to file a complaint for rape inasmuch as the father was still
living. He invokes the following provisions
of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
“SEC. 4. Who must
prosecute criminal actions.-
x x x x
“The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be
prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party, or her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case, if the offender has been expressly
pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case may be.
“The offended party, even if she were a minor, has the right
to institute the prosecution for the above offenses, independently of her
parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of
doing so upon grounds other than her minority.
Where the offended party who is a
minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or guardians, may
file the same. The right to file the action granted to the parents, grandparents or
guardians shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised
successively in the order herein provided.” [See third paragraph of
article 344 of the Revised Penal Code].
While we agree with the
appellant’s contention that the trial court does not acquire jurisdiction if
the complaint charging an accused with any of the aforesaid private crimes is
not filed by one of the persons indicated in said section, there is nothing in
the context thereof to support the view that the mother cannot present the
complaint if the father is still living.
In People vs. Dela Cruz[4], this Court resolved the same legal question
in this wise:
“Appellant’s contention is x x x based on a dubious technicality.
If sustained, it might defeat the ends of justice. It is not sanctioned by section 4 of Rule 110
nor by article 344 of the Revised Penal Code whose provisions do not
categorically specify that the father has the preferential right to file the
complaint for seduction, abduction, rape or abusos deshonestos. It is
noteworthy that ‘the father and mother jointly exercise parental authority over
their legitimate children who are not emancipated’. It is their duty to represent their
emancipated children ‘in all actions which may redound to their benefit.’
[Arts. 311 and 316, Civil Code].
x x x x
“Under the circumstances, the complaint filed by the mother
was a sufficient compliance with article 344 and section 4 of Rule 110. It conferred jurisdiction on the court to try
the case [People vs. Pastores, L-29800, August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 498, 508;
People vs. Bangalao, 94 Phil. 354; U.S.
vs. Gariboso, 25 Phil. 171]. The father’s passivity should not preclude
the mother from securing redress for the outrage committed against her
daughter.”
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby
affirmed, with costs against appellant Gamelo Obusan.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., on leave.
[1]
People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980.
[2]
Article 335, par. 2, Revised Penal Code.
[3]
People vs. Manlapaz, 88 SCRA 704.
[4]
56 SCRA 84, per Justice Aquino.