PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANICETO BULAGAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Bulagao

The Case

This is People versus Bulagao, a criminal appeal from a conviction for two counts of rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Aniceto Bulagao for sexually assaulting a fourteen-year-old girl, identified in the record as AAA, whom he treated as an adoptive sister. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a leading statement on how courts treat a recantation — a witness who takes the stand for the prosecution, then later returns to court for the defense and withdraws her story. Second, it shows how the Court calibrates penalties and damages after Republic Act Number 9346 abolished the death penalty, distinguishing a rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon from simple rape.

Procedural History

Two separate Informations, both dated December 21, 2000, charged Bulagao with rape before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan — one for the incident of June 17, 2000, and another for the incident of June 29, 2000. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty on both counts, and trial on the merits followed.

On January 23, 2006, the trial court rendered a joint decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases and imposing the penalty of death in each, with an award of 50,000 pesos as indemnity for each count. Bulagao appealed to the Court of Appeals. On April 14, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in view of the enactment of Republic Act Number 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, and added moral damages of 50,000 pesos for each count. Bulagao then brought the present appeal to the Supreme Court, and both parties waived their right to file supplemental briefs.

Facts

AAA was born on April 13, 1986. Although her late-registered birth certificate named BBB and CCC as her parents, she testified that they were not her biological parents and that she had only been adopted when she was very young. CCC died in December 1999. In April 2000, AAA came from the province and settled in the house of her brother DDD and his wife in Lolomboy, Bocaue, Bulacan. Living there with her were two other brothers, EEE and the accused Aniceto Bulagao, and her six-year-old sister FFF.

On the night of June 17, 2000, at around eight in the evening, AAA and FFF were sleeping in a room that had no door. AAA was awakened when someone entered. She recognized Bulagao, who was holding a knife. He poked the knife at her neck, causing her to freeze in fear, removed her clothes and his own, kissed her neck, and inserted his penis into her vagina. FFF woke up at that moment, but Bulagao did not stop and continued for about an hour. On the night of June 29, 2000, AAA was sleeping on the second floor of her sister's house, again in a space without rooms. She was roused when Bulagao was already undressing her. He removed his shorts and inserted his penis into her vagina. She tried to resist, but he held her hands, touched her breasts, and kissed her, remaining on top of her for about half an hour.

AAA told her mother BBB and her brother EEE about the rapes. BBB did not believe her and whipped her. When the defense cross-examined AAA to test her character, she affirmed that the deceased CCC had taken advantage of her five times, the first when she was only seven years old. The parties stipulated on the fact of a medical examination and its report, which found AAA in a non-virgin state. More than a year later, the defense presented AAA as its own witness, and she recanted — claiming the sexual encounters were consensual, that she fabricated the charge out of anger because Bulagao made her do laundry, and that a police officer had told her to say a knife was used. On cross-examination, however, she clarified that she had not consented and voluntarily submitted herself to Bulagao. A clinical psychologist testified that Bulagao had mental retardation with an intelligence quotient below fifty. Bulagao himself claimed AAA seduced him, that they merely kissed, and that she demanded 300 pesos afterward.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite AAA's recantation of her testimony for the prosecution.
• Whether or not the exempting circumstance of insanity or mental retardation may be credited in favor of the accused.
• Whether or not the crimes proven were qualified rape by the use of a deadly weapon, and what penalty and damages should be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted and applied by the Court, provides:

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A when committed with the use of a deadly weapon is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.

This fixes the range of penalties and explains why the Court had to determine, count by count, whether a deadly weapon qualified the rape.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction stands. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration, and recantations are generally unreliable and looked upon with considerable disfavor, because they can easily be obtained through intimidation or for monetary consideration. The Court restated the test:

Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible. The rule is settled that in cases where previous testimony is retracted and a subsequent different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same witness, the test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence. A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside and disregarded lightly, and before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one should be carefully compared and juxtaposed, the circumstances under which each was made, carefully and keenly scrutinized, and the reasons or motives for the change, discriminatingly analyzed.

Comparing the two narrations, the Court found the testimony for the prosecution clear, candid, and free of material discrepancies, while the recantation was made when AAA had nowhere to go and was staying with Bulagao's family. Her claim of consensual sex even contradicted Bulagao's own testimony that they merely kissed.

On the second issue, the Court held that insanity was not proven. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence, and insanity presupposes a complete deprivation of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of the crime. The psychological examination came years after the incidents, and nothing showed the same condition then; in any event, the accused could discern right from wrong.

On the third issue, the Court held that the June 17, 2000 rape was qualified by the use of a deadly weapon, but since no other qualifying or aggravating circumstance was alleged in the Information, the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua. For the June 29, 2000 rape, AAA testified that she had hidden the knife before that date, so only simple rape was proven — also punishable by reclusion perpetua. Because the death penalty would not have been imposed even without Republic Act Number 9346, the Court affirmed civil indemnity of 50,000 pesos and moral damages of 50,000 pesos for each count, and added exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos for each count, since exemplary damages may be awarded where the circumstances show highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct.

Doctrine

• A recantation does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if that testimony is credible. The court compares and juxtaposes both testimonies, scrutinizes the circumstances of each, and analyzes the motive for the change.
• Retractions are viewed with considerable disfavor, because they are easily obtained through intimidation or monetary consideration.
• This rule applies with full force in rape cases, where the complainant is usually the lone eyewitness.
• Insanity is an exempting circumstance that must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, showing a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the crime.
• Rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, when committed with the use of a deadly weapon under Article 266-B, carries reclusion perpetua to death; absent other qualifying or aggravating circumstances alleged in the Information, the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The appeal was denied; the conviction for two counts of rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count were affirmed, with Bulagao ordered to pay 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages for each count in addition to the civil indemnity and moral damages, all with interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a recantation does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if that testimony is credible. Examiners use this case to test recantation in rape prosecutions and the distinction between qualified rape by deadly weapon and simple rape, together with the damages that follow.