PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Rosales

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Ninoy Rosales y Esto, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of a woman who is mentally retarded, taking advantage of her mental disability. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: it teaches how the Court treats the testimony of a mentally retarded victim, and it shows how a qualifying circumstance — the offender's knowledge of the victim's mental disability — raises simple rape to qualified rape, changes the penalty, and increases the damages.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 129. He pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits followed. The trial court rendered judgment on 19 September 2007, finding him guilty of rape and imposing reclusion perpetua, with 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages. The accused filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated 26 July 2010, affirmed the trial court. The accused again filed a notice of appeal, and the records were elevated to the Supreme Court, which required the parties to file supplemental briefs. Both parties manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs, having exhaustively argued all relevant issues before the Court of Appeals. The case then came before the Supreme Court on appeal.

Facts

On the morning of 27 June 2004, the victim, thirty-nine years old, was holding a dog outside her residence in Quezon City. The accused approached her and gave her 200 pesos to buy junk food. He then forced her to go with him to his house, located inside a nearby cemetery in Caloocan City. Inside the house, he ordered her to lie down, undressed her, sucked her nipple, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain. Afterwards, he ordered her to put her dress on and took her cellular phone, which he later sold to buy drinks for his companions. She was later fetched by her sister at the accused's house.

The next day, the victim's mother accompanied her to the Women and Children Protection Desk of the Caloocan City Police Station to report the incident. A medico-legal examination was requested and conducted. The medico-legal report noted deep healed lacerations of the hymen and concluded that the subject is in a non-virgin state physically, with no external signs of application of any form of trauma.

A clerical psychologist of the National Bureau of Investigation examined the victim and concluded that she suffers from moderate mental retardation, with a mental age of six years and eight months and an intelligence quotient of forty-one. The accused, testifying in his own behalf, denied the rape but admitted that he was having a drinking session in his house with the victim when the incident occurred. He claimed that the victim had lived in his house for four months prior, and denied any knowledge of her mental condition.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution despite its apparent incredibility.
• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in rendering a verdict of conviction despite the fact that the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. – Rape is committed: 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This defines the crime charged and supplies the elements of rape through force, threat or intimidation.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

This is the qualifying circumstance that raises the crime from simple to qualified rape and increases the penalty to death.

Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 provides:

Section 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

This is why the Court, though it found the death penalty warranted, imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the victim's testimony is credible. The accused's lone argument was that she made no outcry during the lustful advances. The Court rejected this, holding that it is not fair to judge a mentally retarded person, who lacks the capacity to make a mental calculation of events, according to what is natural or unnatural for normal persons. Not every victim can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to usual expectations; people react differently to the same situation. The Court also noted that the victim never wavered in her assertion that the accused raped her, and that mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. The acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court.

On the second issue, the Court held that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The positive and categorical declaration of the victim, supported by the medical findings, prevailed over the accused's denials and alibi. Alibi is inherently weak, and the accused himself admitted he was with the victim at his house when the incident occurred, so he was at the very place where the crime was committed.

The Court then corrected the lower courts, which had found the accused guilty of rape in vague terms. It held that the Information actually charged qualified rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 10. The Court stressed that the qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the information, since it increases the penalty to death and changes the nature of the offense from simple to qualified rape. Although the accused denied knowledge of the victim's mental condition, it was he himself who volunteered that he had lived with her for four months, so it is logical to assume he was fully aware of the workings of her mental faculties. Her condition was sufficiently established by medical findings and the testimony of her mother. The Court therefore imposed the supreme penalty of death, but because Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits the death penalty, it imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Because the crime is qualified rape, civil indemnity and moral damages were increased to 75,000 pesos each, and exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos were awarded.

Doctrine

First, mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. A mentally retarded person may be a credible witness, and acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court.

Second, a mentally retarded victim cannot be judged by the standards of normal persons. The absence of an outcry does not destroy her credibility, because people react differently to the same situation.

Third, when rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim's mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death under Article 266-B, paragraph 10. This qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the information, because it changes the nature of the offense from simple to qualified rape.

Fourth, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, the death penalty is prohibited, so the penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Fifth, qualified rape carries increased damages: 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 75,000 pesos as moral damages, and 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Disposition

The appeal was denied. The accused was found guilty of qualified rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered to pay the victim 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 75,000 pesos as moral damages, and 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: knowledge of the victim's mental disability, alleged in the information and proven at trial, qualifies the rape and raises the penalty, but Republic Act No. 9346 reduces it to reclusion perpetua without parole. Examiners like to use this case on the credibility of a mentally retarded victim who makes no outcry, and on the rule that a qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the information to change simple rape into qualified rape.