THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LAROY BUENAFLOR Y TUAZON ALIAS “LARRY,” DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Laroy Buenaflor, who was charged with and convicted of rape and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the offended
party in the sum of P30,000.00 and the costs of suit, is before the
Court on appeal.

The complaint filed by the offended party, Isabella Federis,
against appellant Buenaflor reads as follows:

“That on or about August 19, 1989, in the City of Naga, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
with lewd design, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by
means of force, threats and intimidation, commit sexual intercourse against one
Isabella Federis y Cedron, against her will and consent.

Contrary to law.”^[1]

The appellant having entered a plea of not guilty on arraignment,
the case proceeded to trial. On 10 May
1990, judgment was rendered by the trial court with the following dispositive
portion:

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused Laroy Buenaflor y Tuazon, alias
‘Larry’, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 335,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, he is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused is further ordered to indemnify the offended party, Isabella
Federis, the sum of P30,000.00 and to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

The facts constituting the offense were
summarized by the trial court in its decision in the following manner:

“As the evidence of the prosecution stands, we find from the clear
and positive testimony of the complainant that she is 21 years old, single, a
student at the University of Nueva Caceres in Naga City, with residence at
Lourdes Young, Nabua, Camarines Sur; that at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening
of August 19, 1989, she was on her way home to her boarding house in
Peñafrancia Avenue, Naga City, together with her boardmate Imelda Barcebal,
coming from the Bichara Theater, and they had to walk in returning to their
boarding house; that when they reached the Naga City Post Office along
Peñafrancia Avenue, the accused coming from behind them and armed with a knife
put his left arm on her shoulder and with his right hand poked a knife on the
right side of her body and told her not to move because she might be killed;
that she called for Imelda Barcebal but the latter kept on running away and
left her alone. The accused then
transferred the position of the knife from the right side of her body to the
right side of her neck. She tried to
shout but the accused pressed harder the knife on her neck and dragged her to a
darker portion of the Mabini Interior and she noticed that the accused had no
more pants and brief and then pushed her down and laid on top of her and tried
to remove her t-shirt (Exhibit D), and [told] her not to shout because he was
going to kill her. The accused was also
able to remove her pants (Exhibit E) and panty (Exhibit F) and, thereafter,
inserted his penis on her vagina for which she felt pain and the accused
started kissing her on her lips and other parts of her body. That she kept on crying and the accused
threatened to kill her.

From the testimony of the complainant it has been further
sufficiently established that, when she was able to regain her strength she
told the accused that wherever he will go she will go with him, but requested
the accused that she first be allowed to go home to get her clothes and money,
to which the accused agreed. The
accused then accompanied the complainant on the way to her boarding house, but
when they reached the Mary Anne Snackhouse which was just in front of the
boarding house, the complainant told the accused to wait for her in that
place. She then proceeded to her
boarding house and upon reaching the same she was met by Aurora Ozaeta, Imelda
Barcebal and the rest of her co-boarders. She then related to them the incident that happened to her and further
told them that the man who raped her was waiting for her in front of the Mary
Anne Snackhouse and described to them the person of the accused and the clothes
he was wearing. Her boardmate, Aurora
Ozaeta, called up the police station giving said information given by the
complainant identifying the person of the accused and where he could be
found. That after a while policemen
arrived informing them that they were able to apprehend the person reported to
have raped the complainant. The
policemen showed to her a knife (Exhibit B) which the complainant identified as
the one used by the accused in poking at her. The policemen went back to their police headquarters. After a while her parents arrived and they
all went to the police headquarters. Aurora Ozaeta and Imelda Barcebal followed to the police
headquarters. That at the police
headquarters the policemen showed to the complainant the person apprehended and
the complainant readily identified him as the person who raped her.”^[3]

Before this Court, the sole error assigned by the appellant is
that:

“[t]he trial court erred in not considering the mitigating
circumstances of imbecility and drunkenness in convicting the accused/appellant
of the crime charged.”^[4]

Appellant did not seriously try to deny that he had sexual
intercourse with Isabella Federis on the night of 19 August 1989. He, however, denied having sexually
assaulted Isabella; he claimed that Isabella did not physically resist the act
of penile penetration and had in effect given her consent to it.

Appellant Buenaflor testified in substance that he was in Naga
City Subdivision on 19 August 1989, in the house of one Badong for whom he
worked. He later declared that he was
staying in his sister’s house in Canaman, Camarines Sur. On the night of 19 August 1989, he saw a
movie at the Robertson Cinema; he left the cinema at 12:00 midnight and
proceeded to the public plaza where he allegedly had been staying for fifteen
(15) days. On cross-examination, he declared
that while at the plaza, he saw two (2) women walking. He approached them, poked a knife at one of
them (Isabella Federis) and led her away to a dark alley. There they performed the sexual act,
appellant stated, without Isabella offering any resistance and even embracing
appellant in the course of copulation. Appellant also testified that he was a “little bit drunk” during that
time.^[5]

The trial court found that appellant Buenaflor had indeed forced
himself on Isabella, that he had explicitly admitted “poking a knife” at
Isabella and that the testimony of Isabella that she had been forced down upon
or near a garbage heap in the dark alley of Mabini Interior and there ravished
against her will, was forthright and candid and worthy of belief. Appellant having presented no basis for
rejecting and overturning the above finding of coercion and intimidation, that
finding must stand.

The principal submission of appellant was in fact that his
criminal liability, if any, should at least have been mitigated in view of his
impaired mental faculties. Appellant
apparently does not seek completely to avoid criminal liability on the ground
of imbecility as an exempting circumstance. The pleadings filed by appellant merely tended to show erratic behavior
and lack of coherence on his part in the course of trial, said to be
symptomatic of a diseased mind, which behavior, although not indicating
complete deprivation of intelligence and freedom of will, we are urged to take
as basis for mitigation of liability.

During the pretrial conference, counsel for appellant stated that
his client was suffering from mental disease. The pretrial conference was thereupon reset to a later date and the
trial court ordered appellant examined by a physician to ascertain appellant’s
mental condition. Appellant Buenaflor
was examined by Dr. Imelda Escuadra, a medical specialist at the Don Susano
Rodriguez Regional Mental Hospital. The
report prepared by Dr. Escuadra set forth the following information:

“Brief Background History:

The patient is the fifth among eight siblings. He was born on February 14, 1968 by normal
spontaneous delivery, assisted by hilot at home. At age three months, he started to have convulsions, up to age
three years old. As a consequence, he
had poor scholastic standing, repeating Grade I several times and stopped at
Grade II. He was observed to be
childish with poor speech development and behaved as ‘uto-uto.’

Patient was accused of raping a girl last August 20, 1989. He was ordered to submit himself for neuropsychiatric
evaluation.

Mental Status Examination:

An adult male, with handcuffs, wearing clean printed polo shirt and
faded maong pants. He had pockmarks on
his face due to pimple scars. He looked
serious, with faraway gaze and at times downcast eyes.

He claimed he was Larry Buenaflor, a resident of San Jose,
Camarines Sur. He recognized his
companions: his mother and police
escort. He claimed he finished Grade
III. Initially, he denied knowing the
number of children in their family, later, he said there are four boys and five
girls. He also claimed he did not know
his age.

He admitted he had a case in court — rape; mentioned a girl named
Annabel Frias as the victim, a resident of Peñafrancia Street, Naga City. He narrated that he brought her home from
Naga City. With him that time was Ruel
Villegas. He said he loved the girl and
has been courting her giving several dates when his love [was] accepted. He also said he raped the girl once but it was
Ruel who did it first. He cannot give
the details of the incident of the crime.

He spoke coherently and relevantly but not spontaneous in
character. He denied not [sic] knowing
some facts as his age, the number of children of the family and he was not sure
of the dates he gave. As he spoke, he
sighed deeply.

He complained of impaired sleep and impaired appetite. He had impaired memory as evidenced by his
inability to recall important facts like number of children in the family.

During the second interview he was more relaxed, responded
spontaneously and claimed he had good sleep and appetite. No hallucinations were elicited.

In his third interview, he looked depressed, complaining of
insomnia.

During the last interview, he was also depressed and complained of
poor sleep.

Physical Examinations:

Essentially normal findings.

Psychological Testing:

Subject weighted a score of 37 with an IQ equivalent to 63
indicating mild mental deficiency level of intellectual functioning. His judgment and comprehension are
poor. Projectivewise, depressive
reaction is prominently established. Poor reality testing function is elicited. Diagnosis:

1. Mental retardation

2. Reactive depression

3. No psychosis.

Remarks and Recommendations:

In view of the foregoing examinations and observations, the patient
is suffering from Mental Retardation and Reactive Depression. However, he is not psychotic.

A person with mental retardation has below normal intelligence as
evidenced by the intelligence quotient tests. He has poor memory, poor judgment and poor grasp of general
information. He is trainable up to the
primary grades only. According to the
‘Synopsis of Psychiatry’ by Kaplan a patient with mental retardation ‘has
concurrent deficits or impairment in adaptive functioning, i.e., a person’s
effectivenes in meeting the standards expected for his or her age by his or her
cultural group in area such as social skills and responsibility, communicates
daily living skills, personal indulgence and self-sufficiency.’ (sic)
Therefore, he is capable of undergoing judicial trial with much difficulty.”^[6]

Article 12 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides as follows:

“Article 12. Circumstances
which Exempt from Criminal Liability. — The following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.

x x x              x x x x
x x”

Imbecility, like insanity, is a defense
which pertains to the mental condition of a person. Our caselaw projects the same standards in respect of both
insanity and imbecility, that is, that the insanity or imbecility must
constitute complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act,
or total deprivation of freedom of the will.^[7] The
above quoted medical evidence that was admitted into the record in the case at
bar does not show complete deprivation (nor even substantial deprivation) of
intelligence on the part of appellant Buenaflor and he, accordingly, cannot be
deemed exempted from criminal liability for the rape of Isabella Federis. His behavior on the night he raped Isabella
showed that he was quite conscious of his acts and aware of the moral quality
thereof.

At the same time, we
believe, however, that the medical evidence of record does show that appellant
Buenaflor’s mental faculties were to some extent retarded or impaired in their
development, which impairment or retardation reflects a diminished level of
responsibility for his criminal acts. Article 13 (9) of the Revised Penal Code provides as follows:

“Article 13. Mitigating
Circumstances. — ­The following are mitigating circumstances:

x x x                                      x
x x                                         x
x x

(9) Such illness of
the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will power of the offender
without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.

x x x                                      x
x x                                         x
x x”

We think that the mitigating circumstance contemplated in Article
13 (9) of the Revised Penal Code was present in the case at bar.

Appellant, in addition, claimed intoxication as a mitigating
circumstance. As earlier noted, he had declared
on cross-examination that he was a “little bit drunk” at the time he committed
the act complained of. On that basis
alone, appellant asserts he should be credited with a mitigating circumstance.

The ordinary rule is that intoxication may be considered either
as aggravating or as mitigating, depending upon the circumstances attending the
commission of the crime. Intoxication
has the effect of decreasing the penalty, if the intoxication is not habitual
or subsequent to the plan to commit the contemplated crime; upon the other
hand, when intoxication is habitual or intentional, it is considered as an
aggravating circumstance.^[8] The
person pleading intoxication must present proof that he had taken a quantity of
alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce
the effect of blurring his reason;^[9] and
at the same time, he must prove that not only was intoxication not habitual^[10]
but also that his imbibing the alcoholic drink was not intended to fortify his
resolve to commit the crime.^[11]

The record here does not show that appellant had taken an
alcoholic beverage prior to raping Isabella Federis. The testimony of appellant himself on direct examination did not
establish such drinking as a fact. The
sole basis of appellant’s claim to the alternative circumstance of intoxication
is his own remark during cross-examination that he was a “little bit drunk”
when he inflicted himself sexually upon Isabella Federis. We do not believe that appellant’s own
remark sufficiently established his asserted state of intoxication.

At any rate, the appreciation of a mitigating circumstance in
favor of appellant Buenaflor would not have the effect of reducing the penalty
of reclusion perpetua
imposed upon him by the trial court. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes that “in all cases in
which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, [such penalty] shall be
applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed.” Reclusion
perpetua is a single indivisible penalty.^[12]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated 10 May
1990 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 8.

^[2]
Id., pp. 31-32.

^[3]
Trial Court Decision, pp. 10-11.

^[4]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 1.

^[5]
TSN, 1 March 1990, pp. 4-17.

^[6]
Record, pp. 83-84.

^[7]
People v. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658 (1950).

^[8]
Article 15 (3rd paragraph) of the Revised Penal Code.

^[9]
People v. Boduso, 60 SCRA 60 (1974).

^[10]
People v. Serenio, 179 SCRA 379 (1989); People v. Boduso, supra.

^[11]
People v. Hernandez, 91 Phil. 334 (1952).

^[12]
Article 76, Revised Penal Code. People v.
Banzales, 148 SCRA 649 (1987).