PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENATO ENDINO Y GAPIDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
REYES, JR., J.:
“WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused having been proven by the prosecution beyond an iota of reasonable doubt, pronounces him GUILTY of the crime of RAPE and sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
The period of his detention shall be credited in his favor.
No pronouncement as to costs.” (Records, p. 142)
Appellant was charged in an information which reads:
“The undersigned Prosecutor accuses RENATO ENDINO y GAPIDO of Buhang, Bulusan, Sorsogon for VIOLATION OF RA 8353, committed as follows:
That on or about the 19th of February, 2000 at 3:00 o’ clock in the afternoon at barangay Buhang, Municipality of Bulusan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Mary Ann Gaurino y Buasan, a mentally retarded woman, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Records, p.28)
Upon arraignment on 10 July 2000 (Records, p. 28), appellant pleaded not guilty, and after pre-trial on 28 August 2000 the case was set for hearing.
It is undisputed that at around 3 o’ clock in the afternoon of 19 February 2000, appellant and the alleged victim Mary Ann Gaurino (Mary Ann, for brevity) were inside the house of one Jaime Frontona at Barangay Buhang, Bulusan, Sorsogon. What is in dispute is: What happened while they were at the said place. It was the prosecution’s allegation that while the two (2) where in the said place, appellant ravished complainant. Naturally, appellant denied having sexual intercourse with the complainant.
To prove its assertion, the prosecution presented five (5) witnesses. The prosecution presented Ma. Elena Sharon Sampilo-Young, Rural Health Physician, who conducted the medico-legal examination on complainant. She testified that complainant confided to her that she was sexually abused. The medical report (Exh. “B”) indicated that complainant had fresh lacerations in her vagina at 1, 3, and 9 o’ clock positions.
The prosecution also presented Norma B. Moll, Guidance Counsellor at the Bicol University, Legaspi City, who stated that she was a psychometrician and consultant of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). She testified that she conducted examinations on the complainant and found that she has a mental age between nine to ten years old although she was already twenty years old at the time of her examination.
The prosecution also presented Aida Gaurino (Aida, for brevity) mother of Mary Ann, Mary Ann herself and Andrea Gaurino (Andrea, for brevity), whose testimonies may be summed up as follows: That on the afternoon of 19 February 2000, Andrea and Mary Ann were selling crabs but when they reached the road, appellant held the hands of Mary Ann and sent Andrea home, thus, they were not able to sell crabs. While on her way home, she met Aida who asked her where Mary Ann was. Aida then started to look for her daughter and found her outside the house of Jaime Frontona. Mary Ann then started crying. At home, Mary Ann told her mother that she was raped by appellant. Aida further testified that her daughter was mentally retarded. The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution were summed up by the trial court as follows:
“(1) Ma. Elena Sharon Sampilo-Young – Rural Health Physician and a resident of Gubat, Sorsogon – she conducted a medico-legal examination on private complainant Maryann Gaurino on February 20, 2000 at the former’s home since the latter missed her at the Gubat District Hospital since she was away on training. Maryann, upon interview, confided that she was sexually abused. In her medical report she indicated that she found lacerations fresh with sharp edges in the vagina with inflammation at 1,3, and 9 o’ clock positions which could have happened within five days of the examination and the hymen was already damaged which could have been the result of sexual intercourse. The medical report is remarked Exh. ‘B’, the findings, Exh. ‘B-1’, the signature of Dr. Young, Exh. ‘B-2’. (TSN November 20, 2000, pp. 2-6 and TSN March 28, 2003, p. 7)
(2) Aida Gaurino, resident of Buhang Bulusan, 60 years old, mother of Maryann (sic), the private complainant. She declared that since age 4 Maryann (sic) had been slow learner and she was able to finish Grade VI because she was just given consideration in school. Renato Endino is their neighbor and still a relation of her husband though she did not say what the degree of relation is. She identified the accused in court. She recalled that on February 10, 2000 at around 3:00 p.m. while she and Maryann (sic) were sleeping, Renato Endino went to their house, woke them up and told Mary Ann to bring the baby crabs (‘semilya’) which she was selling to his brother, ‘Dayi’, who just arrived. So she told Maryann (sic) to sell the crabs and asked Andrea, a next door girl, to accompany the former. She saw Renato pulling Maryann (sic) by the hand towards the sea but did not mind it as she was occupied by her ‘LBM’. Later Andrea returned and told her that Renato sent her home. She got nervous so she started looking for Maryann (sic) and after a while found her going out of the house of Jaime Frontona. Asked why she was there Maryann (sic) started crying, and said she was brought there by Renato Endino who, when confronted by her, said he did nothing to her daughter. At home, Maryann (sic) told her she was raped by Renato Endino. She and her husband went to the police station and filed a case a case against Renato.
She further testified that Maryann (sic) responds to her commands/requests all the time but sometimes she does something erroneous or defective since she is mentally defective. This fact is particularly known to the teachers. She was examined by a psychometrician. She identified the document relative to such examination, a psychological evaluation, Exh. ‘A’, the second page thereof, Exhibit ‘A-1’. (TSN, May 28, 2001, pgs. 3-9).
On cross, she declared that after the girl Andrea was sent back by Renato she first looked for her daughter at the place of the one buying crabs by the bridge, which was far, but did not find her there. She testified that Jaime Frontona was not in his house but it was Danilo Hagos who stayed there; however, he was not there when Renato brought Maryann (sic) to that house. (TSN August 20, 2001, p. 6)
(3) Andrea Gaurino – 11 years old, Grade V, Buhang Elem. School, Bulusan, resident of Buhang – identified the accused and the private complainant in court. She declared that on February 19, 2000 at about 3:30 p.m. she and Maryann (sic) were about to sell crabs but when they reached the road Renato Endino or ‘Inoy Renato’ as she calls him, held the hand of Maryann (sic) and she was sent home by the former. So, they were not able to sell small crabs to ‘Inoy Daye’, Renato’s brother. She was told that the two of them (Renato and Maryann (sic)) would be the ones to sell the crabs. When she was standing by their house, ‘Manay Susan’ as she calls Aida Gaurino, mother of Maryann (sic), passed by and asked her where Maryann (sic) went before she went home, she said they went towards the place of Jaime Frontona. She said Maryann (sic) went freely with Renato. (TSN October 8, 2001, pgs. 2-9)
(4) Norma B. Moll, 57, Guidance Counsellor at the Bicol University, Legaspi City, was presented as an expert in the field of psychology being a psychometrician and a consultant of the DSWD. She testified that she used a combination of the Purdue-Nonlanguage test and ‘HTP’or ‘House-Tree-Person’ test, the Vender Gestelt Visual Motor Test, and the Sentence Completion Test to ascertain the mental and psychological and Behavioral Evaluation’ which she prepared with respect to her examination of the private complainant, as well as her signature therein (Exh. ‘A-3’) and the Test Report and Interpretation (Exh. ‘A-4’). She placed Maryann (sic) in the mentality of a 10-to-12-year old even if she was 20 at the time of her examination.
On cross, she declared that she does not do medical examination since she is not qualified to do that. She can only testify on the area of mental functioning in terms of intelligence. She said that Maryann’s (sic) defect is not mental but physical. Also, her poor school orientation may have hindered her mental development. (TSN July 22, 2002, pgs. 2-11)
(5) Maryann (sic) Gaurino, 23, the private complainant, identified the accused. She said the latter would usually accompany her father in fishing. She recalled that on February 19, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. she was at the place of Jaime Frontona. The accused first invited her to sell crabs and volunteered to accompany her. But instead, he brought her to Jaime Frontona’s house and in the kitchen had sex with her. He first undressed her but she did not resist not do anything because she was afraid as he told her not to tell her mother or he would do something to her. He performed the sex act on her 4 times but she did nothing as she was afraid. After she got dressed and she was leaving the place Danilo Hagos arrived. Renato was still in the kitchen. Danilo did not say anything. Then she heard her mother calling her and she answered. She cried and when asked what Renato did to her she told her mother that she performed sexual intercourse on her. He mother went to Frontona’s house to see Renato Endino while she left for home.
Queried about Andrea Gaurino, she said the latter was with them when they were about to sell crabs but was sent home by the accused who said that he and Maryann (sic) would be the ones to sell the crabs.
She went on to say that she, with her mother, went to the police and reported the incident. The police picked up the accused. She was then brought to Dr. Young by her mother and her sex organ was examined and they then went home. She identified the medical certificate (Exhibit ‘B’) issued by Dr. Young. (TSN February 21, 2003 pgs. 3 to 15)
On cross, she repeated that Renato brought her to the house of Frontona and she was forced to go in. There were no people around at that time at about 3:00 p.m. and he threatened her. She did not attempt to shout nor run as she was threatened and told not to tell her parents. She just stood there as Renato pulled her shorts and panty down up to her knees. He also removed his pants. (TSN March 21, 2003 pgs. 2 to 9) She did not know how long the sexual intercourse lasted. She described that she was made to sit on his lap with her legs open. The accused was sitting on a chair when he let her sit on him. She did not embrace him and when the accused kissed her she removed her lips. The accused embraced her tightly. After the incident Danilo Hagos arrived. (TSN March 29, 2003 pgs. 2 to 7).” (Records, pp. 136-138)
The defense for its part presented two (2) witnesses, the appellant and Danilo Hagos. While the defense admitted that on 19 February 2000, appellant and Mary Ann were in the house of Jaime Frontona, they claimed that nothing happened between the two. Their testimonies were summed up, thus:
“Danilo Hagos, 55, married, fisherman, resident of Buhang, Bulusan, was the first witness – he testified that he was the caretaker of the house of Frontona who was in Manila. On February 19, 2000 in the afternoon he came from a drinking spree when he arrived home at 1:00 p.m. he chanced upon ‘Ka Dulo’ (Renato Endino) and a ‘woman’ (whom he pointed out as Maryann (sic) Gaurino). The two were sitting in the kitchen as it was raining. When he got inside the house Maryann (sic) went out without a word and met her mother who scolded her.
On cross he testified that he was asked by the father of Renato Endino to testify and to tell the truth that he came upon Renato and Maryann (sic) at the house of Frontona but that they did nothing. He admitted he was drunk when he arrived at the place. He further declared that when Maryann (sic) left he went to buy cigarette and heard a child asking Maryann (sic) if she had sold crabs and the latter answered in the affirmative. To his thinking Maryann (sic) was a ‘normal’ woman. Later he changed his statement and denied that he saw Maryann (sic) meet her mother and was scolded by the latter. (TSN June 9, 2003, pgs. 2 to 20). He also declared that the day following the incident the father of Renato asked him to go to the police station with him to testify that he saw the accused and Maryann (sic) at the place of the incident but that they did nothing wrong. (TSN June 9, 2003, pgs. 21 and 22).
Renato Endino – 38 years old, married, the accused, was the second and last witness for the defense. He testified that on the date and time of the alleged incident he was in Buhang and had just bought viand when he met the private complainant about to sell crabs. It rained so the two of them took shelter in the house of Jaime Frontona which is taken care of by Danilo Hagos. He denied he had sexual intercourse with Maryann (sic). Confronted with the medical certificate attesting to the scratches in the sex organ of the latter he said he did not know who did that to her. He went out of the house after the rain. But when Danilo Hagos arrived from a drinking spree that afternoon he and Maryann (sic) were still inside the house.
Asked why Maryann (sic) would file a case against him he declared it was not Maryann (sic) but her parents who filed the case against him because they were angry with his brother over a land dispute.
On cross, he admitted he was with Maryann (sic) at the house of Jaime Frontona as he asked her to take shelter there because of the rain. He recalled he and the private complainant were inside that house for only 5 minutes and all he asked her was why she did not bring the crabs to his brother’s place in the morning. Asked what Maryann (sic) was wearing that day he said he forgot and neither did he know if she was wearing a bra because he had not seen her without clothes. (TSN July 21, 2003, pgs. 2 to 15)” (Records, pp. 138-139)
The prosecution again presented Aida and Mary Ann on rebuttal and their testimonies were summed up as follows:
“Aida Buasan Gaurino – testified that she does not have any business with Renato Endino’s brother, Antonio, and that she did not know of any land dispute. She declared she filed a case against the accused because he raped her daughter. She had no bad blood with Renato Endino nor his brother, Antonio, before the incident. She declared she also knows Danilo Hagos but disclaimed his testimony that she scolded Maryann (sic) on the date of the incident but that instead she threw invectives at Renato. She said she had no bad blood with Danilo. (TSN September 22, 2003, pgs. 1 to 5)
Maryann (sic) Gaurino, the alleged victim was likewise presented to rebut the denial of Renato that he raped her. She maintained she was forced into the house of Jaime Frontona because he was threatening her. Questioned by the Court as to how she was threatened she testified that he told her he would kill her. She clarified further that when they entered the place of the incident it was not raining yet but that it rained when they were already inside.
On cross, asked whether dictated by her mother as to what to testify in court she said the latter told her to tell what really happened to her.” (TSN October 27, 2003, pgs. 1 to 9). (Records, p. 139)
After trial, the court below found that the prosecution had established that appellant had sexual intercourse with the complainant who was suffering from mental problems and found him guilty of rape.
Appellant is now before this Court raising the following errors:
“THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IS A MENTAL RETARDATE.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ELEMENTS OF FORCE AND INTIMIDATION WERE LACKING IN THE INSTANT CASE.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.” (Rollo, p. 43)
Appellant adopted a two (2) pronged attack against the decision of the trial court. On one hand, he claimed that there was no sexual intercourse (See: Rollo, p. 53). On the other hand, he argued that if there were intercourse, prosecution failed to prove force was employed. He claimed that this is necessary because the mental retardation of complainant had not been fully established, hence, force and intimidation would have to be proven by the prosecution.
The first issue which the Court has to resolve is whether or not there was sexual intercourse because if there were none, rape would obviously not exist. It is the appellant’s position that complainant’s testimony failed to establish intercourse, claiming that:
“Furthermore, the prosecution was not able to depict well the private complainant’s assertion that there was indeed sexual intercourse between her and the accused-appellant. It must be noted that in her testimony, the private complainant merely talked of the accused-appellant kissing and embracing him tightly while she sat on his lap.” (Rollo, p. 53)
After perusing the testimony of Mary Ann, the Court finds that nothing can be farther from the truth. Her testimony specifically stated that they had sexual intercourse four (4) times. Relevant portion of her testimony reads:
“Q: You said a while ago that you were undressed by the accused, am I correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What clothes was undressed from you?
A: T-shirt and panty.
Q: Renato was the one who removed that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: While he was removing that, what did you do?
A: Nothing as I was afraid.
Q: After removing your t-shirt and panty, what happened?
A: He performed sexual intercourse to me.
Q: How many times?
A: Four times.
Q: During that 4 times, what did you do?
A: Nothing.
Q: Why?
A: I was afraid.” (TSN, 21 February 2003, pp. 6-8) (Emphasis supplied)
This brings us to the next issue of: Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant for rape or not. It should be remembered that under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Rep. Act No. 8353) that rape exists when there is sexual intercourse with a woman who is under twelve (12) years old or who is demented.
In the present case, it is the prosecution’s stand that the Mary Ann suffers from some form of mental problem. This appellant denies.
The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that evidence in the present case showed Mary Ann to have a mental age between 10 to 12 years old. As testified to by Norma B. Moll:
“Q: Madam Witness, after applying the different tests authorized and duly recognize in the field of psychology, what now was your finding with respect to the mental age of Maryann Gaurino who is presently 23 years old?
A: A quick perusal shows that Maryann Gaurino has the mental age of a chilled 10 to 12 years considering the kind of responses she exhibited during the testing which shows that she is able to comprehend some of the basic things in life. She remembers things about her family and herself. She is unable to function as an adult of 22 which is her age at the time of the examination. She was age 20 but she exhibited response that were true to a 10 to 12 years old child.” (TSN, 22 July 2002, pp. 9) (Emphasis supplied)
The Court notes that appellant did not question the testimony of Norma B. Moll, neither did he question the method by which the conclusion was reached. He merely gratuitously argued that there was no evidence regarding Mary Ann’s mental condition (See: Rollo, pp. 49-50).
However, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, findings of facts by the trial court are generally not disturbed in appeal (People v. Pascua, 366 SCRA 508 [2001]); People v. Pulusan, 290 SCRA 353, 370 [1998]). After going over the records of the case, the Court finds that the trial court had basis to conclude that Mary Ann did suffer from a mental problem.
In fine, the prosecution had established that there was sexual intercourse with the woman whose mental age is below 12 years old, hence, the trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of rape.
The Court also is not persuaded by appellant’s argument that there was no evidence that force was employed in the present case. In People v. Gabawa (398 SCRA 467 [2003]), the Supreme Court held that at sexual intercourse with a mentally ill woman at any age, even without the use of force, is rape. It is, therefore, irrelevant whether or not force or intimidation was present for accused-appellant to be convicted of the crime of rape.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 5 March 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, of Gubat, Sorsogon, Branch 54, in Criminal Case No. 2172 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Abdulwahid and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.