PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AGAPITO (PEPITO) AGRAVANTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Agravante

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Agapito Agravante, known as Pepito, an appeal from a conviction for rape. The victim was Rowena Obiasca, a fourteen year old child who is a mental retardate. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it settles that mental retardation does not by itself disqualify a person from being a witness, and that a mental retardate of tender mental age may be found credible. Second, it reminds us of the rule on alibi and denial, and of the civil liability that follows a conviction for rape. The accused admitted taking the child from her guardian's house, but denied the sexual assault and claimed he was elsewhere.

Procedural History

An amended information for rape was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 37, against Agapito Agravante. On arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty, and trial proceeded. The prosecution presented the guardian, the cousin of the accused's mother, the examining physician, the psychiatrist, a housemaid, and the victim herself. The defense presented the accused and his sister-in-law. The trial court rendered its decision on January 20, 1995, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, and to pay costs. From that decision the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in August 2000.

Facts

In the morning of June 11, 1993, Pepito Agravante, a former helper of Maria Afante, went to her house where Rowena Obiasca lived under her guardianship. He told Rowena that her elder brother Alex was waiting for her at the parking area. She refused at first, but he returned three times insisting, and she finally went with him. Instead of bringing her to her brother, he took her by jeepney, alighted at Santa Justina, and walked with her toward the house of Marcos Morada in San Ramon, Buhi, Camarines Sur. Marcos was a cousin of the accused's mother. They asked for water and to rest, but Marcos grew suspicious and asked Pepito whether, if he entered into things like this, he could get out of it. Pepito said nothing, and Marcos did not let them stay.

On the way back, at a grassy place, the accused tethered the rooster he was carrying, held both of Rowena's wrists, and pushed her down. He pulled down her short pants and her panty, and when she kept struggling he unsheathed his bolo and told her not to move or he would kill her. Because she is a mental retardate she could not put up much resistance, and he consummated the act. Afterwards they dressed and walked on. He wanted her to stay and sleep at the house of an old woman, but she refused, so they returned to the poblacion. He brought her to the house of his sister-in-law Alice, who told Rowena what to say when asked where she had been, and who sent word to the Afantes that Rowena was there.

When Maria Afante came home the next day, she was told Rowena was sleeping. The following morning Rowena said she had followed her brother Alex, as Alice had instructed and as the accused had threatened. Maria did not press further. On June 29, 1993, Maria learned that Rowena had been seen with another person that day, and confronted her until she admitted the truth. Maria went to San Ramon on the pretext of buying pineapples, found Marcos Morada, and he confirmed that Rowena and the accused had come to his place. Maria then brought Rowena to the police and to a doctor. Dr. Alicia Mercurio examined her and found an old tear in the hymen and that the vagina admits one finger, which could be due to pressure, slipping on a rock, riding a bicycle, sexual intercourse, or fingering. Dr. Chona Cuyos-Belmonte, a psychiatrist, examined Rowena and found moderate mental retardation with an intelligence quotient of forty six and a mental age level of a seven to nine year old child, negative for any psychotic illness, and capable of relating events that happened in her life and of testifying on matters that happened to her.

Issues

• Whether or not a mental retardate is disqualified from being a witness, and whether or not the testimony of Rowena Obiasca is credible.
• Whether or not the evidence is sufficient to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt, in the face of his defense of denial and alibi.
• Whether or not the accused is liable for civil indemnity in addition to moral damages.

Applicable Provisions

The information charges the crime in these terms:

That on or about the 11th day of June, 1993, in Buhi, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with bolo, and by means of force and intimidation, and with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with Rowena Obiasca, a 14 year old mental retardate, against her will, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be proven in court.

This is the charge the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and it frames the force, the intimidation, and the lewd design that the Court weighs against the accused's denial.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. The transcript showed that the victim was not only capable of perceiving the facts of her ordeal, but was able to make known those perceptions intelligently and to narrate them truthfully despite examination by both the prosecutor and the defense counsel. The psychiatrist's report confirmed moderate mental retardation with an intelligence quotient of forty six and a mental age of seven to nine years, with no psychotic illness, and with the capacity to relate events in her life. The Court added that a mental age of seven to nine years even bolsters credibility, since a victim at such tender age would not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused unless that was the truth. It also stressed that no woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and expose herself to a public trial unless motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit punished.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the defense of denial and alibi. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim, who in a simple and straightforward manner convincingly identified the accused. The prosecution thus established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On the third issue, the Court held that in addition to the fifty thousand pesos awarded as moral damages, another fifty thousand pesos must be given as civil indemnity.

Doctrine

A mental retardate is not, for that reason alone, disqualified from being a witness. Capacity to perceive, to remember, and to narrate truthfully is what qualifies a witness, and a mental retardate may be found credible where the evidence shows she can intelligently make known her perceptions. A mental age of seven to nine years does not destroy credibility; it may even strengthen it, because a child of such tender age would not fabricate a story of sexual abuse. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and, absent clear and convincing evidence, cannot overcome the positive and straightforward identification by the victim. Finally, a conviction for rape carries civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos in addition to moral damages of fifty thousand pesos.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting Agapito Agravante of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the modification that he is ordered to pay fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity in addition to fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. Examiners use this case on the credibility of mentally retarded witnesses and on the weakness of denial and alibi against positive identification, and it is a ready illustration of civil indemnity awarded alongside moral damages in rape.