G.R. No. 134608. August 16, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO DUCTA @ PETER DUCTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
VITUG, J.:
the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 52, of Sorsogan, Sorsogon, finding accused-appellant Pedro Ducta,
a.k.a. Peter Ducta, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil
indemnity to the victim.
The information filed by the provincial prosecution against
accused-appellant read:
“That on or about the 10th day of August, 1996, at barangay
Sampaloc, municipality of Sorsogon, province of Sorsogon, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd designs, by means of force and intimidation, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, had carnal knowledge
of one ERLINDA CLAR, a mentally retarded girl, against the victim’s
will, to her damage and prejudice of said victim.“CONTRARY TO LAW.”[1]
The accused, when arraigned before the trial court on 07 January 1997,
entered a plea of “not guilty.”
The facts submitted by the prosecution and the defense, found by the
trial court, were reflected in the ponencia under review.
“Ester de los Santos Brondial testified that on August 10,
1996 at
about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, more or less while she was in her
store at Market Site, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, decided to go home. When she
reached home, the door of her house was locked so she pushed it hard and
as it opened, she saw the accused Pedro Ducta on top of her daughter
doing sexual intercourse by moving his buttocks up and down. At first,
she was shocked but after few seconds, she was able to get hold of a
bamboo slot and hit him with it. Accused did not fight back but tried
to ask forgiveness. According to said witness, when she left for her
store, she left her daughter alone as she is mentally retarded. Her
daughter is already 43 years old and from morning till afternoon, she
just sat down. She sent her to school but stayed three years in Grade I
and she learned only how to make circle. That she shouted for
policeman, and Kagawad Norberto Mateos and Domingo Polinag arrived in
her house. That same day, she brought her daughter to Dr. Humilde
Janaban, and a medical certificate was issued which was marked as Exh.
A. Erlinda Clar when called to the witness stand and when asked if she
knew the accused answered in the affirmative and when asked why she knew
him, she answered because he went up the house and when asked what did
he do, she answered, he removed his clothes and after removing his
clothes when asked what did he do, witness made a sign meaning sexual
intercourse by placing her thumb in between her forefinger and middle
finger and when asked to whom did he do that, she answered she was the
one, pointing to herself.“Dr. Humilde Janaban testified that when she examined the
victim, her findings were:“Physical Examination:
“Vagina admits 2 fingers with ease with old hymenal
laceration at 6:00, 3:00 & 9:00 positions;“Erythema and abrasions at the urethra, with minimal whitish
vaginal discharge (Exh. A).“According to the doctor, the hymenal laceration can be due
to
sexual intercourse and the erythema and abrasions at the urethra could
have been caused also by sexual intercourse. And she also testified
that the erythema and abrasions at the urethra is recent, that is, it
could be hours before the examination. She further testified that when
she examined the victim, she noticed that she is having abnormal mental
status, meaning she is in the form of psychiatric patient, she was
answering most of the time, when she would ask question, victim would
smile, in short she is not normal as far as mental status is concerned.“The defense presented the accused and Nena Despabaladeras
whose testimony is to wit:“That on August 10, 1996 at about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon he
was at a roadside in front of the house of the complainant in Sampaloc,
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, having just finished washing his tricycle. While
thereat, he was called by Ester de los Santos Brondial, his neighbor and
requested him to bring outside her house the bananas. That while they
were talking, Nena Despabiladeras passed by and when asked by him, where
she is going, she answered she is going to the market. That he went up
the house and saw five boxes of bananas on the floor. Because he does
not know the box he will carry, he went down the house to ask Ester de
los Santos what to carry but when he met her on the door way, said Ester
de los Santos went up and hit him with a bamboo stick hitting him in
the head and at the same time uttering ‘you are a thief, a rapist.’ He
tried to pacify Ester de los Santos, telling her why she is doing that
to him when he did not do anything wrong. Ester de los Santos continued
talking and so what he did, he just sit down. She continued shouting
in the window. ‘Here is the thief, here is the rapist.’ Then Kagawad
Norbeto Mateos and Kagawad Domingo Polinag arrived. When asked by
Norberto Mateos, Ester answered that she came upon this Peter who was
standing, and she don’t know what he was doing. The two suggested to
Ester to have her child examined by the doctor and the incident placed
in the police blotter. When the police arrived he was brought to the
station and he was detained.“Defense witness Nena Despabeladeras testified that on
August 10,
1996 at about 2:30 p.m. she went to the market, passing the house of
Ester de los Santos, and she saw the accused and said Ester conversing
and when she returned home, she passed the same route end she saw many
people in the house of Ester de Santos but she did not inquire why there
are so many people.“On rebuttal, Ester de los Santos Brondial denied that she
ever
asked the accused to carry boxes of bananas and she likewise denied ever
seeing witness Nena Despabeladeras passing near her house.”[2]
On 25 March 1998, the trial court rendered judgment convicting the
accused; it held:
“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused Pedro Ducta y
Pascual alias Peter guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
and sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.”[3]
In his appeal to this Court, accused-appellant raised the following
assignment of errors, to wit:
“1. The trial court gravely erred in declaring that private
complainant, Ellen delos Santos’ (a.k.a. Clarita Clar in the
Information) is a mental retardate notwithstanding the absence of
pertinent medical and clinical examination having been conducted on the
latter.“2. Granting arguendo that private complainant is a mental
retardate, the trial court still gravely erred in giving due weight and
credence to the unintelligible and incoherent testimony of the former
thereby casting grave doubt on the criminal culpability of appellant
Pedro Ducta.“3. The trial court likewise gravely erred in giving due
weight
and credence to the testimony of prosecution alleged eyewitness Ester
delos Santos Brondial despite the existence of imputed ill-motive
nurtured by the latter against appellant Pedro Ducta.”[4]
The Court finds no cogent justification for decreeing a reversal of the
judgment rendered by the trial court.
Ester de los Santos Brondial sufficiently demonstrated in her testimony
that her daughter, Ellen (Erlinda Clar), although already forty-three
(43) years old at the time of the incident in question, was indeed a
mental retardate.
“Court:
“Q Your daughter is Ellen de los Santos?
“A Yes, Your Honor.
“Prosecutor Gabito:
“Q How old is your daughter?
“A 43 year olds old, madam.
“Q At that age, how does she behaves?
“A She do not know anything, morning till afternoon, she
just
sat down, if you do not ask her, she does not answers and sometimes, she
do not answers me when I asked her. Whenever I sent her to an errand,
her execution is not perfect.“Court:
“Q Did she go to school?
“A She went to school but she was not able to learn, Your
Honor.“Q What grade did she finish?
“A She stayed in grade 1 for almost three years but she
only learned how to make circles.“Prosecutor Gabito:
“Q. Did you say that she acts like a normal 43 years old
lady?“A No.
“Q Was she born that way?
“A Yes.
“Court:
“Q Did you consult a doctor to examine your daughter?
“A Yes, Your Honor, but I cannot afford for a therapy
because I am very poor.“Q What is the finding of that doctor?
“A According to the doctor, she will not get well because
that is already her natural condition.“Q What is that condition?
“A If you let her sit down, the whole afternoon,
sometimes, she
dances, sing a song but she cannot perform any household
chores.”[5]
Likewise, Dr. Ma. Humilde Janaban, the physician who conducted the
medical examination on private complainant, declared that the latter had
an “abnormal mental status;” she testified:
“Q At the time that you examined the patient, were you
able to observe her behavior?“A Yes, madam.
“Atty. Hibo:
Your Honor, please, this witness was called to testify on the
medical certificate and not on the behavior of the patient, she is not
competent to testify on that.“Prosecutor Gabito:
That is an outward manifestation:
“Court:
She can notice the behavior, manner of the patient. Answer.
“Witness:
“A The patient was noted to be having abnormal mental
status;
meaning, she is in the form of psychiatric patient, she was answering
most of the time, when I would asked a question, she would smile, in
other words, not normal as far as mental status is concerned.”[6]
The Court has already ruled once before that the state of mental
retardation of a victim of rape can be established by evidence other
than by the medical findings of a specialist.[7]
So also, in a good number of instances, the Court has said that a
woman need not be completely deprived of reason for sexual intercourse
by a man with her to constitute the crime of rape. The term “deprived
of reason” has been construed to include the feeble-minded although
coherent and those suffering from mental deficiency or some form of
mental disorder.[8]
Looking at her testimony, Erlinda, despite her mental condition, was
nevertheless able to give coherent answers, although with apparent
difficulty, about the rape incident and to identify accused-appellant as
being the culprit.
“Direct Examination by Prosecutor Gabito:
We are presenting this witness, Your Honor for the purpose of showing
her behavior and how she will answer the questions propounded to her if
she can discern her answers and other related matters.
“Atty. Hibo:
The Court can just observe the demeanor of the witness, the victim.
“Prosecutor Gabito:
With leave of Court.
“Court:
We have to find out whether she can answer the questions intelligently.
Proceed.
“Prosecutor Gabito:
“Q Ellen, do you know Pedro Ducta alias Peter?
“Atty. Hibo:
That is already outside the purpose for which this witness is being
presented.
“Court:
Make that on record.
“Prosecutor Gabito:
How can we prove, Your Honor, if we will not ask the witness.
“Court:
Answer.
“Witness:
“A (Witness nodding her head)
“Prosecutor Gabito:
“Q Is he in Court?
“A Yes, madam.
“Q Please point him?
“A He is there (witness pointing to a man inside the
courtroom who identified himself as Pedro Ducta).“Q Why do you know him?
“A Because he went up the house.
“Q What did he do in your house?
“A He removed his clothes.
“Q After removing his clothes, what did he do?
“A (witness – made a sign meaning sexual intercourse by
placing her thumb in between her forefinger and middle finger).“Q To whom did he do this?
“A I was the one (witness pointing to herself with the
gesture she demonstrated a while ago).“Q How many times did he do this to you?
“A (Witness demonstrating by raising her palm, meaning
five).“Q What did you feel?
“A I felt his penis (BOTO).
“Q Where did you feel his penis?
“A In my vagina (SA BULI).
“Q Whose vagina was that?
“A Mine, madam (witness pointing to herself).”[9]
The Court finds it here relevant to repeat the rule that a mental
retardate who has the ability to make her perceptions known to others is
still a competent witness.[10]
The imputation of ill-motive on the part of eyewitness Ester de los
Santos Brondial against accused-appellant fell far too short from being
said to be an established fact. Nothing significant on record could show
that Ester entertained any previous personal grudge against
accused-appellant. At all events, it would be unnatural for a mother to
subject her daughter to humiliation and disgrace[11] if it were not due solely to her
desire to see to it that justice was done.[12]
Not to be missed was the medical finding of Dr. Janaban who conducted
the medical examination on the victim. Dr. Janaban found multiple
hymenal lacerations, positive erythema and abrasion on the victim’s
genitalia, as well as urethra in the internal part of her vagina,
indicative of a recent sexual act. She testified:
“Q You have two findings,here, based on your physical
examination, can you please read this to us?“A (witness reading the findings)
“Q Considering this hymenal laceration, what can you tell
us about its cause?“A It can be due to sexual intercourse.
“Q Repeated, considering the multiple laceration?
“A Not necessarily.
“Q What about this positive erythema and abrasion, what is
this in layman’s language?“A Abrasion is Gasgas while erythema is reddening.
“Q What could have caused the erythema and abrasion at the
time you examined her?“A Due to scratches on the surface.
“Q What could have caused those scratches?
“A It can be due to sexual intercourse.
“Q Is this urethra found in the internal part of the
vagina?“A Yes, madam.
“Q And, would you say that these abrasions, erythema were
very recently inflicted at the time that you examined her?“A Usually, if there is urethra, it is recent.
“Q How recent would it be?
“A That could be hours.”[13]
The testimony of defense witness Nena Despabiladeras that she saw
accused-appellant and Ester, the victim’s mother, in a casual
conversation along the roadside minutes before the alleged incident did
not prove anything except to show, in fact, that no bad blood existed
between accused-appellant and Ester. Moreover, that Ester was not far
from the scene of the crime did not make the commission of rape
unlikely; past events would show that rapists had not been deterred from
committing their odious act by the presence of people, nearby.[14]
In accordance with recent jurisprudence, the Court finds that an
additional award to the victim of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages is
in order.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo,
convicting
accused-appellant Pedro Ducta of the crime of rape and imposing on him
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with
the
MODIFICATION that, in addition to the award of civil indemnity of
P50,000.00, he hereby is likewise ordered to pay the victim, by way of
moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00. Cost against
accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, Purisima, and
Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p.
8.
[2] Rollo, pp.
51-53.
[3] Rollo, p. 55.
[4] Rollo, pp.
33-34.
[5] TSN, 17
February 1997, p. 4.
[6] TSN, 18
February 1997, pp. 7-8.
[7] People vs.
Romua, 272 SCRA 818.
[8] People vs.
Guerrero, 242 SCRA 606.
[9] TSN, 17
February 1997, pp. 8-10.
[10] People vs.
Erardo, 277 SCRA 643.
[11] People vs.
Galleno, 291 SCRA 761.
[12] People vs.
Oliva, 282 SCRA 470.
[13] TSN, 18
February 1997, pp. 5-7.
[14] People vs.
Ramos, 296 SCRA 559.