Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 188901

December 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is an Appeal, 1 seeking the reversal and setting aside of the
Decision2 dated 11 May 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the
Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 12
convicting appellant Gilbert Castro y Aguilar (Castro) of the crime of rape, with
modification as to the amount of damages awarded to the victim.
In line with the ruling of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto, 4 the real name and
identity of the rape victim, is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to
represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other
information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of
her immediate family, are not disclosed in this decision. Instead, the rape victim
shall herein be referred to as AAA; her mother XYZ; and her uncle, BBB.
THE FACTS
The victim in this case is an 18-year old lass with a mental capacity akin to a 5year old child. Due to her poor learning capacity, she has not even finished
Grade 1 and is unable to read and write.
The accused, on the other hand, was then 22 years old and a second cousin of
the victim. He testified that he has known the victim for 3 years prior to 5
February 2002, the alleged first rape incident. 5 They are neighbors whose
residences are just two meters apart.6
On 14 February 2003, Castro was charged with two counts of rape before the
RTC in informations7 the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 771-M-2003
That on or about the 5th day of February, 2002, in the municipality of San
Ildefonso, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with the use of bladed weapon, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence
and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of the said AAA,

a mentally retarded, a fact known to the accused, against her will and without her
consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 772-M-2003
That on or about the 27th day November, 2002, in the municipality of San
Ildefonso, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence and intimidation and with
lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of the said AAA, a mentally retarded, a fact
known to the accused, against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment, Castro, with the assistance of counsel, entered separate
pleas of not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, the cases were consolidated and
trial on the merits ensued. In the course of the trial, two versions arose.
Version of the Prosecution
As summarized by the RTC and adopted for the most part by the CA, the version
of the prosecution8 is as follows:
This resolves the alleged rape committed twice on an 18-year old woman named
AAA whose IQ & Projected Test concluded at the National Center for Mental
Health by psychologist Nimia C. de Guzman resulted to a finding that "Level of
intelligence is appraised under the Moderate Level of Mental Retardation
(Imbecile) with a numerical IQ of 43 and mental age of 5 years 6 months. xxx
Personality profile pictures an immature and inadequate person who has not
achieved full development of her learning and social skills." xxx (See Exh. "D,"
Psychological Report) (at pp. 6-20; TSN, April 14, 2005).
The medico-legal examination conducted on November 29, 2002, to determine
the presence of physical signs of sexual abuse has shown that she "is in nonvirgin state, physically," although "there are no signs of application of any form of
trauma at the time of examination" (See Exh. "A," Medico-Legal Report) (at pp. 210; TSN, June 26, 2003).
xxx
The accused, Gilbert Castro y Aguilar, then 22 years old, single, was AAAs
neighbor whose house was just more than two (2) meters away. Despite that
proximity between their houses and knowing her for years, he denied on the
witness stand ever talking to her or to any member of her family. He was arrested
at his house on November 28, 2002, where he contended to be on those dates
and time he allegedly had carnal knowledge of the mentally retarded victim (at
pp. 3-5, TSN, March 23, 2006; pp. 4-7, TSN, June 22, 2006).

From the witness stand AAA pointed to accused Castro as the man who raped
her for two times, first, during the wake for a deceased neighbor or supposedly
on February 5, 2002, when he brought her under a mango tree where he made
her lie down on banana leaves and stripped her off her clothings before inserting
his penis inside her vagina, and, second, on November 27, 2002, when he did
same things to her at the same place under the mango tree. She said that before
that happened the accused used to frequent her place, giving her peanuts and
some money (at pp. 2-7, TSN, April 20, 2004).
What they did on November 27, 2002, was discovered when prosecution witness
BBB, their 55-year old neighbor who claimed on the stand to be their uncle and
that the two of them were second cousins, caught them in the act of sexual
intercourse behind the unoccupied house of her parents at that time under a
mango tree, both fully naked. He had been watching them for three (3) days
before, suspicious that they were up to doing something bad. So when he saw
them from his house by the door outside, he approached them making the
accused run off away as soon as he saw him coming. Left behind in her
nakedness AAA admitted that she was doing the act with the accused. So, he
covered her with her clothings and walked her to her house and left her parents
at the market where they were vegetable vendors. As soon as told of what he
discovered, her parents went home with him and, together that afternoon of the
following day, they reported their complaint to the local police where AAA and
witness BBB gave their respective statements on the incident (Exhs. "C" and "E")
(at pp. 2-6, TSN, September 29, 2005; pp. 2-13, TSN, October 13, 2005).
Version of the Defense
To exculpate himself from liability, accused Castro offered both denial and alibi as
his defense. He denied raping the private complainant. He averred that on 5
February 2002, between 5:00 in the afternoon to 12:00 in the morning, he was
attending a funeral wake of a neighbor. During the alleged second rape, he
contended that he was inside their house having lunch with his sister. After lunch
at around 2:00 in the afternoon, he allegedly went to the field to harvest palay.9
Ruling of the RTC
On 2 January 2007, the RTC rendered a decision acquitting Castro in Criminal
Case No. 771-M-2003 for failure of the prosecution to clearly establish that
accused, with the use of a bladed weapon, assaulted and had carnal knowledge
of AAA on 5 February 2002. The trial court, however, found Castro guilty of the
crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 772-M-2003. The dispositive portion of the
latter decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding herein accused Gilbert Castro y Aguilar guilty as principal
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged in Criminal Case No.
772-M-2003, without any circumstance, aggravating or mitigating, found
attendant in its commission, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify victim AAA in the amount of P50,000.00, plus
another P50,000.00 as moral damages subject to the corresponding filing fees as
a first lien, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
xxx

Aggrieved, Castro appealed to the CA,10 assigning the following error:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Accused-appellant argued that the lower court failed to appreciate the fact that
the testimony of private complainant was full of contradictions. The trial court
allegedly gave credence to the inconsistent statements made by AAA which
when analyzed are highly illogical.
Accused Castro averred that the inconsistent statements of AAA were made
apparent during the cross-examination. She allegedly denied that the accused
was courting her despite her previous statement in court that she was being
courted by accused-appellant. Accused also submitted that the failure of AAA to
offer any resistance when she was allegedly being sexually molested belies the
charge of rape.
Ruling of the CA
In its decision dated 11 May 2009, the CA affirmed with modification the findings
of the RTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated January
2, 2007 and its subsequent Order dated March 2, 2007 finding accused-appellant
Gilbert Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape are hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the damages awarded. Accordingly,
accused-appellant is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.11
Hence, this appeal.
In a resolution dated 1 February 2010, the Court required the parties to
simultaneously file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30)
days from notice. In their respective pleadings, both the appellee, represented by
the Office of the Solicitor General, and the appellant, represented by the Public
Attorneys Office, manifested that they will no longer be filing any supplemental
briefs in support of their respective positions. The appellant merely repleaded
and adopted all the defenses and arguments raised in his Appellants Brief.
The vital issue before this Court is whether the pieces of evidence adduced by
the prosecution is sufficient to convict Castro beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape committed against AAA. In fine, assailed in this recourse are the
credibility of the prosecutions witnesses and the adequacy of its evidence.
This Court has painstakingly perused over the records as well as the transcripts
of stenographic notes of this case and found no reason to reverse and set aside
the findings of the trial court and the CA. We affirm Castros conviction.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that 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 otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
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.
xxx
Clearly, "sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the
mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape." 12 Proof of
force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of
giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual
congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the
latter.13
In the case before us, the prosecution was able to establish through clinical and
testimonial evidence that AAA is a mental retardate. It presented and offered the
psychological report of Dr. Nimia de Guzman of the National Center for Mental
Health stating that AAA was suffering from moderate mental retardation
(imbecile) with an IQ of 43 and a mental age equivalent to that of a five and a half
year old child.14 Likewise, the testimonies of XYZ 15 and the
psychologist16 confirmed the victims mental retardation.
The aforesaid facts support the allegation in the information that AAA is a mental
retardate. It was even noted by the appellate court that the defense admitted the
fact that the victim is suffering from mental retardation, as stated in the accusedappellants Kontra Salaysay.17
The prosecution has likewise established beyond reasonable doubt that
accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA. We have thoroughly examined
the testimony of AAA and found no reason to cast doubt on her categorical and
positive declarations of the sexual assault committed against her. Her narration
of the sexual act was straightforward and categorical. We quote the pertinent
portion of her testimony:
Direct examination by Fiscal Geronimo
Q: Do you recall when was the first time that he raped you?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Tell us.
A: Long time ago, sir.
Q: And immediately prior to that incident when you said he raped you, tell
us what did Castro do?
xxx
A: He laid me down on a banana leaves (sic) on the ground under a
mango tree, sir.
xxx
Q: Do you recall when was the second time that you said Castro raped
you?
A: I do not know, sir.
Q: When Castro raped you the second time around, before that rape took
place, what did Castro do to you?
A: I was stripped of my clothes, sir. (Hinubuan)
Q: And where was that? What place was that?
A: The same place, Your Honor.
Q: And after Castro stripped of your clothes, what did Castro do?
A: Hinipuan po.
Q: What part of your body was touched by Castro?
A: On my breast and my private organ, sir.
Q: After that, what did Castro do?
A: He laid down, sir.
Q: At that time were you also laying down?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: That is also under the mango tree?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: When Castro laid down, what did Castro do?

A: He came on top of me, sir.
Q: Was Castro at that time without clothes?
A: He was wearing his short, sir.
Q: Was that short removed from his body when he went on top of
you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When he came on top of you, what did you feel?
A: I feel pain, sir.
Court: Are you saying he again inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Fiscal: After that, what did you do?
A: I was the one who is being pushed, sir.
Q: Would you please show us the manner by which you were
pushed by Castro?
A: His body is being press (sic) over my body, sir.
Q: When you felt pain, after that, what transpired?
A: He left me, sir.
Q: What about you, what did you do?
A: I went home, sir.
Q: After that you said, was that after two days you reported the two
incidents to your mother?
A: Two days after I was raped, the second time, I reported the matter to
my mother and to the police, sir.18
Appellants contention which essentially assails the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses testimony is untenable. It was observed that on the witness stand AAA
remained steadfast and never wavered in her testimony. She maintained even on
cross-examination that it was appellant who defiled her. The inconsistencies

raised by appellant are insignificant matters which are not material ingredients of
the crime of rape. We maintain that inconsistencies on minor details do not
lessen a victims credibility; are common and may be expected from an
uncoached witness.19
On the other hand, We give scant consideration on the defenses proffered by
appellant. This Court has consistently ruled that bare denial and alibi are
inherently weak defenses because these are self-serving and easy to fabricate.
For not being substantiated by sufficient evidence, appellants defenses failed to
overcome or undermine the positive and categorical declarations of AAA.
Notably, appellant contended that on 27 November 2002 at 12 in the afternoon,
he was having lunch with his sister. He, however, failed to present his sister to
testify on the truthfulness of his allegation. Moreover, the incident in question
occurred in a place which was just a few meters from his house. Thus, it was not
impossible for him to be at the crime scene during the period alleged by the
prosecution witnesses.
We must reiterate that, ultimately, when the issue is one of credibility of
witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial court
unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if
considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial court
is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. 20
This Court likewise affirms the CAs ruling on the penalty to be imposed on
appellant Castro.
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by The Anti-Rape Law of
1997 provides:
xxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with
any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
xxx
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.
The information in this case alleges that AAA is a mental retardate and such fact
was known to the appellant at the time of the commission of the crime. These
allegations were duly established by the prosecution during trial. The trial court
which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses
during the trial ratiocinated the conviction of the accused with the following
statement:
The Court is convinced that indeed herein accused on 27 November 2002, had
carnal knowledge of AAA, an 18-year-old woman with a weak mind that her
mental age was only that of a five and a half (5 ) year old child. Her abnormality

as a retardate was known to their neighborhood, including the accused, an

immediate neighbor. His obstinate denial of ever talking to her and her family is,
therefore, a lie.21
We affirm the trial and appellate courts findings that it was highly improbable for
Castro not to have known that AAA was a mental retardate considering that they
were cousins and their residences were just two meters apart. The cause of the
prosecution was further strengthened by the testimony of XYZ, the uncle of AAA
and appellant. Unlike other rape cases where the Courts evaluation is limited to
the testimony of the victim and the accused, the instant case had a witness who
testified that he personally saw the commission of the crime. Thus, the imposition
of the death penalty would have been proper.
1avvphi1

With the enactment of R.A. 934622 on 24 June 2006, however, the imposition of
death penalty has been prohibited. Pursuant to Section 2 thereof, the property
penalty to be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua. RA 9346 should be
applied even if the crime was committed prior to the enactment of the law in view
of the principle in criminal law that favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda.
Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect. 23
In addition, appellant shall not be eligible for parole. Under Section 3 of RA 9346,
"persons convicted with reclusion perpetua, or those 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."
We likewise affirm the CAs ruling with regard to the amount of civil indemnity and
moral damages awarded. We sustain the amount of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity despite the reduction of the penalty imposed on appellant from death
to reclusion perpetua. As explained by this Court in People v. Victor,24 the said
award does not depend upon the imposition of the death penalty; rather, it is
awarded based on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the
imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. 25
We also find proper the CAs ruling increasing the award of moral damages
from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Moral damages are awarded without need of
proof for mental, physical and psychological suffering undeniably sustained by a
rape victim because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral
injuries entitling her to such award.26
We, however, increase the amount of exemplary damages awarded
from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence 27 on the
matter. The Court, in the case of People v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr., 28 awarded
exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders
who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse.
WHEREFORE, the 11 May 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CRHC No. 02733 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellant Gilbert A.
Castro is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
qualified rape committed against AAA for which he is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole. He is further ordered to

pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto; P75,000.00 as

moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.

Today is Thursd

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 189822

September 2, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

vs.
BRION, JOJIE SUANSING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental retardation is rape since she is incapable of giving consent to a sexual act
needs to be proved for a successful prosecution are the facts of sexual congress between the rapist and his victim, and the latt
Factual Antecedents

For review is the July 17, 2009 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00439-MIN that affirmed with mo
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Davao City, in Criminal Case No. 49,196-2002, finding appellant Jojie Suansing (ap
of the crime of rape against "AAA,"4 as described in the Amended Information,5 the relevant portions of which read as follows:

That sometime in the first week of April 2001, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Cou
means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of one "AAA", attended by the qualify
mental disability. The accused knew of such mental disability at the time of the commission of the crime. The sexual assault do
of "AAA".
Contrary to law.6

Appellant pleaded not guilty. After the pre-trial conference, trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented as its witnesses "AAA;" her aunt and guardian, "EEE;" her friend, "FFF;" doctor of gynecology, Mary
doctor of psychiatry, Sally Jane Kwong-Garcia, M.D. (Dr. Kwong-Garcia); and psychologist Evangeline Castro (Castro). The RT
evaluating her ability to comprehend and answer questions. The RTC also permitted the prosecution and the defense to propou
their testimonies,8 the following facts emerged:

"AAA" was born on July 6, 1975. She used to live in Tangub City with her grandparents because her mother suffered from and
was 15 years old, she became a mother to a baby boy who was born on September 29, 1990. Nobody admitted responsibility f
guidance and supervision, "AAA" was transferred to the residence of "EEE" who raised her as a daughter.

Sometime before April 8, 2001, "GGG" requested "FFF" to get from appellants boarding house an electric fan and a transforme
"AAA" went to the boarding house of appellant. After giving the requested items, appellant ordered "FFF" and her brother to lea

"FFF" brought the items to "GGG" who, upon learning that "AAA" was still with appellant, requested "FFF" to return to appellan
arriving at the boarding house, "FFF" noticed that the door was closed. She called out to "AAA" to go home to avoid being scol
and came out fixing her short pants. "FFF" then asked "AAA" if anything happened. "AAA" replied that after "FFF" and her broth
pulled her inside the room, removed her shoes and panty, told her to lie down on the floor, and inserted his penis into her vagin
"FFF" not to tell anyone that she was raped by appellant.

On August 3, 2001, "EEE" learned about the rape and confronted "AAA." "EEE" then reported the incident to police authorities.

The genital examination of "AAA" on August 6, 2001 revealed old hymenal lacerations. Her psychiatric evaluation also disclose
retardation with the mental age of a 9 to 12-year old child. Although with impaired adaptive skills, the RTC found "AAA" qualifie
examination of "AAA" established her mental retardation to be in a mild form and her intelligence quotient (IQ) of 53 though bel
"within the defective level of a Normal Intelligence Scale."
Version of the Defense

In his testimony,9 appellant denied raping "AAA." He claimed that he used to live with "AAA" and her relatives and was conside
"AAA" as his niece and knew about her mental retardation. He later rented a room near the residence of "AAA." He admitted th
2001, his sister "GGG," who was living nearby, asked "AAA," "FFF," the latters brother and another girl to go to his boarding ho
toaster, and a wall dcor. "AAA," "FFF" and the other girl went inside his room while "FFFs" brother waited outside. After gettin
while "AAA" stayed behind. After a few minutes, "FFF" and the other girl returned to fetch "AAA." He belied the statement of "FF
pants when she came out of his room.

Appellant claimed that the relatives of "AAA" filed the instant case against him because his sister, "GGG", no longer gives them
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its April 14, 2004 Decision, the RTC found convincing evidence that "AAA" is a mental retardate; that in spite of her mental in
as shown from her "intelligent and coherent answers to questions propounded to her by the prosecution, the defense and the C
"AAA" is a mental retardate; that appellant raped "AAA;" that "AAA" or "FFF" was not ill-motivated to falsely accuse appellant o
intimidation was unnecessary as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act.

However, the RTC also ruled that since "AAAs" mental retardation was not specifically alleged in the Amended Information, it c
circumstance that would warrant the imposition of the death penalty. The RTC stated that the "mental disability" of "AAA" at the

description of several mental ailments and that the Amended Information failed to specify what constitutes "mental disability." T

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rap
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the
Php50,000.00 as moral damages.
He shall be committed forthwith to the national penitentiary.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.11
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal12 with this Court. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo, 13 the case was remande
disposition.14
In his brief, appellant imputed upon the court a quo the lone error that it

X X X GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTIO
REASONABLE DOUBT.15

Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; that the medi
allegation that "AAA" was raped; that the elements of force, violence and intimidation were not proved; that he was falsely accu
aunt, "EEE", was angry at him even before they reported the alleged rape to police officers; that even if nobody raped her, "AA
"EEE."

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), asserted in its brief 16 that the RTCs Decision should be affirmed
appellant failed to persuade; that a medical examination is not an indispensable element in the prosecution of rape and an acc
sole basis of the victims credible testimony; that force and intimidation do not have to be proved since "AAA" suffers from men
denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of "AAA." It thus invoked the well-established rule that the findings of the R
witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and are given the highest consideration on appeal.

In its Decision, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC with respect to the assessment of the testimony of "AAA." It also affirme
mental retardation of "AAA" as a qualifying circumstance that would result in the imposition of the death penalty since it was no
Information. However, the CA modified the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages to conform to prevailing jurisprudence
CAs Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Davao City, dated April 22, 2004 in Criminal Case No. 49,1
MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant JOJIE SUANSING is ordered to pay the private complainant the sums of Php50,000.00 as
moral damages plus costs.
SO ORDERED.17
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal18 praying for his exoneration.

On February 3, 2010, the parties were directed to file their supplemental briefs 19 but both the OSG and appellant opted to adop
before the CA as their appeal briefs.

Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 8353, states that:
Art. 226-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 m

"[F]or the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2) thr
was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented." 20 From these req
rape is committed the moment the offender has sexual intercourse with a person suffering from mental retardation. "[C]arnal kn
retardate is rape. A mental condition of retardation deprives the complainant of that natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on
reason, sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is incapable of giving consent to the carnal
requiring proof that the accused used force and intimidation in committing the act." 21 Only the facts of sexual congress between
latters mental retardation need to be proved. 22

In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the sexual congress between ap
mental retardation. "AAA" positively identified appellant as her rapist. 23 She also described the manner by which appellant perp
ATTY. GASPAR:
Q:
What happened when you stayed behind?
A:
He removed my shorts and panty.
Q:
So what happened after removing your shorts and panty?
A:
[We] had a (sic) sexual intercourse.
COURT:

Q:
What did he do to you?
A:
(No answer)
ATTY. GASPAR:
We manifest Your Honor that the witness is crying.
ATTY. CAGATIN:

We would like to manifest for the record, your Honor that in spite of several questions of what [Suansing did] to her[,] no answe
COURT:
Alright.
Q:
Could you answer the question?
A:
[We] had sexual intercourse.
ATTY. GASPAR:
Q:
Where did that happen?
A:
At the boarding house.
Q:
What part of the boarding house?
A:
I could not recall.
Q:

What was your position, were you lying when he had sexual intercourse with you?
A:
He asked me to lie down.
COURT:
Q:
Did the penis enter your vagina?
A:
(The witness is gesturing in the affirmative.)
ATTY. CAGATIN:

The gesture of the witness could not be made a point of reference. Nothing has been shown by the witness that it has been for
COURT:
Alright, you answer.
A:
He entered his penis.
Q:
And you enjoyed it?
A:
No.
COURT:
Alright.
Q:
And you consented [to] the sexual intercourse?
A:
No.

Q:
Why did you allow yourself to have sexual intercourse with Jojie Suansing?
A:
Because he pulled me towards the room.24

Both the RTC and the CA also found that "AAAs" mental retardation was satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Dr. Kwon
Medical Center, testified that the results of the IQ test conducted on "AAA" revealed that she is a mental retardate with a menta
findings are contained in a Medical Certificate dated December 11, 2002. 25 These findings were corroborated by the Psycholog
psychologist at the Davao Medical Center, whose examination showed that the intellectual capacity of "AAA" is between 9-12 y
prove beyond doubt that "AAA" is a mental retardate. Notably, the defense did not even impugn "AAAs" mental retardation. On
appellant himself conceded that "AAA" is a mental retardate. We therefore agree with the RTCs ruling, as affirmed by the CA,
A mentally retarded victim cannot fabricate her charges.

The RTC and the CA did not err in giving credence to the testimony of "AAA." Records show that "AAA" cried when she recalle
hands of the appellant. "[T]he crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the ve
experience."27

There is also nothing from "AAAs" testimony that would arouse suspicion. Considering the mental retardation of "AAA," we find
fabricate the rape charge against appellant. It is likewise unlikely that she was instructed into accusing appellant given her limit
condition, only a very traumatic experience would leave a lasting impression on her so that she would be able to recall it when
Balatazo,29 we held that:

Given the low IQ of the victim, it is impossible to believe that she could have fabricated her charges against appellant. She defi
inventiveness. Even with intense coaching, assuming this happened as appellant insists that the victims mother merely coache
witness stand where she was alone, it would eventually show with her testimony falling into irretrievable pieces. But, this did no
proceeded, though with much difficulty, to describe the sexual assault in such a detailed manner. Certainly, the victims testimon
Mental retardation does not lessen her credibility.

The mental deficiency of "AAA" does not diminish the reliability of her testimony. It has been our consistent ruling that the RTC
witnesses deserves great respect in the absence of any attendant grave abuse of discretion since it had the advantage of actu
evidence, including the conduct of the witnesses, and is in the best position to rule on the matter. This rule finds greater applica
sustained by the CA, as in this case. Here, we do not find any reason to depart from the RTCs assessment of the testimony of

Further, "AAA" was able to make known her perception, communicate her ordeal, in spite of some difficulty, and identify appella
retardate qualifies as a competent witness if she can perceive, and can make known her perception to others. 32
Absence of fresh lacerations does not negate sexual intercourse.

Concededly, the physical examination conducted on "AAA" revealed old hymenal lacerations. However, "[t]he absence of fresh
intercourse. In fact, rupture of the hymen is not essential as the mere introduction of the male organ in the labia majora of the v
crime."33 In other words, "[w]hat is required for a consummated crime of rape x x x is the mere touching of the labia by the penis
this minimum requirement as she testified that appellants penis entered her vagina. 35
All told, we are not persuaded by appellants denial, which is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification

the crime. "[A]ppellants mere denial cannot overcome the victims positive declaration that she had been raped and the appella
Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim during the rape qualifies and makes it punishable by death.
Paragraph 10, Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, provides:
ART. 266-B. Penalties. x x x

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circum
xxxx

10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the tim
[Emphasis supplied]

Thus, knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim during the commission of the crime of rape qualifies and m
such knowledge by the rapist should be alleged in the Information since "a crime can only be qualified by circumstances pleade
In this case, the Amended Information specifically provides:

That sometime in the first week of April 2001, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Cou
means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of one "AAA", attended by the qualify
mental disability. The accused knew of such mental disability at the time of the commission of the crime. The sexual assault do
of "AAA".
Contrary to law.38

Clearly, appellants knowledge of the mental disability of "AAA" at the time of the commission of the crime of rape was properly
"Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of rape qualifies the
x x x."39"When rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victims mental retardation, the penalty is increased
chronic condition present from birth or early childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by stan
disability "is a term synonymous with and is now preferred over the older term, mental retardation." 42

As found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was aware of the
testified that he knew "AAA" and that he even used to reside with her and her relatives. He was treated as a member of their fa
niece. His boarding house was also a few minutes away from the residence of "AAA." He also admitted that "AAA" was known
community. The low intellect of "AAA" was easily noticeable to the RTC from the answers she gave to the questions propounde
We also stress that from the filing of this case until its appeal, appellant did not assail "AAAs" mental disability and even admitt
inadequacy.
Thus, appellants knowledge of "AAAs" mental disability at the time of the commission of the crime qualifies the crime of rape.
of qualified rape.
Proper Penalty

Paragraph 10 of Article 266-B of the RPC expressly provides that the penalty of death shall be imposed "when the offender kne
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime." The supreme penalty of death should have been imposed on the ap
circumstance of knowledge at the time of the rape that "AAA" was mentally disabled.

However, the enactment of RA 934643 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. In lieu thereof, the penalty of reclusion per
Section 2 of RA 9346. In addition, as provided under Section 3 thereof, appellant shall not be eligible for parole.
Damages
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be P75,000.00 if the rape is perpetrated with any of
circumstances that require the imposition of the death penalty.44

Moral damages must also be awarded in rape cases without need of proof other than the fact of rape since it is assumed that t
entitling her to such an award. However, the CAs award ofP50,000.00 must be increased to P75,000.00 to conform to existing
likewise called for, by way of public example and to protect the young from sexual abuse. 46 We therefore order appellant to pay
amount of P25,000.00.47 In addition, we order appellant to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded fro
judgment until fully paid.48

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00439-MIN dated July 17, 2009 is AFFIRMED with
Suansing is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty o
for parole. The amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages awarded to "AAA" are increased to P75,000.00 each. Appellant
"AAA" exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per an
judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.

Today is Thursd

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 177294

February 19, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JOSEPH DELA PAZ, accused-appellant.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

For review is the Decision1 dated 27 September 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02164, which affirmed th

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. 99-175577, finding herein appellant guilty beyond reaso
rape with the modification that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed instead of the death penalty in view of the enactm
prohibits the imposition of the latter. The amount of damages awarded was also modified.

Two separate Informations4 both dated 4 August 1999 were filed against the appellant charging him with the crime of rape, as d
Act No. 8353,5 in relation to Republic Act No. 7610,6 committed against AAA,7 on the same date 16 May 1999. The two Informa
Criminal Case No. 99175577

This state prosecutor of the Department of Justice, on sworn complaint of AAA, a thirty-one-year-old woman with a men
months old on account of mental retardation, and of her mother, BBB, accuses [herein appellant] Joseph Dela Paz of R
Republic Act No. 8353, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, committed as follows:

On 16 May 1999, at [No.] xxx, xxx, xxx, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant] Joseph Dela P
unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, a thirty-one-year-old woman with a mental capacity o
on account of mental retardation, knowing at the time that she was mentally disabled and employing force and
and prejudice.8
Criminal Case No. 99175578

This state prosecutor of the Department of Justice, on sworn complaint of AAA, a thirty-one-year-old woman with a men
months old on account of mental retardation, and of her mother, BBB, accuses [herein appellant] Joseph Dela Paz of R
Republic Act No. 8353, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, committed as follows:

On 16 May 1999, at [No.] xxx, xxx, xxx, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant] Joseph Dela P
unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, a thirty-one-year-old woman with a mental capacity o
on account of mental retardation, knowing at the time that she was mentally disabled and employing force and
and prejudice.9
Upon arraignment, the appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded NOT GUILTY to both charges.

At the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense failed to make any stipulation of facts. The prosecution, however, r
documents as their Exhibits for purposes of identification, to wit: (1) Complaint Sheet 10 as Exhibit "A"; (2) Sworn Statement of th
and "B-2"; (3) Sworn Statement of AAA12 as Exhibits "C," "C-1," "C-2"and "C-3"; (4) Living Case No. MG-99-478 13 as Exhibit "D"
and evaluation report14 issued by Lorenda N. Gozar, Ma. Cynthia A. Alcuaz and Romel Tuazon Papa, Psychologist-in-Charge, C
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Neuro-Psychiatric Service, respectively, as Exhibits "E," "E-1," "E-2," and "E-3." Thereaf
terminated and trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: CCC, the younger brother of the victim; AAA, the victim; Dr. Rio Blanca Da
and Lorenda Nocum Gozar,15 the psychologist at the Neuro-Psychiatric Service of the NBI.

CCC testified that he is the younger brother of the victim, AAA. Having been living in the same house, CCC was able to observ
her as "isip bata" although she was already 31 years old because of her marked difficulty in remembering and comprehending
AAA had only finished kindergarten as she could not cope with the demands of higher education. 16

On the night of 16 May 1999, while he, together with his wife, brother and sister were watching television in their house located
downstairs to answer the call of nature in a comfort room situated beside their store. 17 Thirty minutes had passed, but his sister
to follow her. They went down to the comfort room beside their store and began to knock at the door of the comfort room. They
minutes and got no response. Consequently, they forcibly opened the door. Much to their surprise, they saw their half-dressed
the naked appellant inside the comfort room. In that situation, CCC's elder brother immediately boxed the appellant on the righ

friend, neighbor and drinking buddy of CCC, apologized at once and asked for their forgiveness. Thereafter, they talked to their
crying.18

During AAA's testimony, she disclosed that on the night of 17 May 1999, 19 while she was defecating in a comfort room located o
store, the appellant entered. AAA shouted as she was afraid that the appellant would kill her. Once inside the comfort room, the
she was then sitting on the toilet bowl, the appellant, who was standing in front of her, lifted her up with both her hands raised u
her vagina. After the appellant had finished the push and pull movements, he withdrew his organ from the vagina of AAA and in
Thereafter, the appellant started to dress up AAA. It was at this point that AAA's brothers barged into the comfort room, literally
down. AAA's brother then punched the appellant. In turn, the appellant asked for forgiveness. 20

AAA further testified that she came to know the appellant who was the friend of her brother, CCC. She likewise claimed that sh
station together with her mother but she cannot remember the dates anymore. 21

Dr. Rio Blanca Dalid, the Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI who examined AAA declared that on 18 May 1999, she examined AA
MG-99-478.22 She found AAA's hymen to be stretchable meaning that AAA's hymen can accommodate an average-sized Filipin
breaking the hymen.23

Lorenda Nocum Gozar, the clinical psychologist at the Neuro-Psychiatric Service of the NBI who conducted a series of psychol
her mental condition, revealed in court that on 18 May 1999, the medical officer of the NBI referred to her the case of AAA. She
examination on the victim on the said date and the same was reduced into writing 24 on 1 June 1999. Upon examining AAA, she
Mentally Retarded Group with a mental age of six years and six months and an Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.) of 40, although she
such conclusion, she used the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale, the Projective Test, behavioral examination, psychological tes
and psychological interview. All of the said types of psychological tests yielded the same results as regards the mental conditio
AAA gave long answers to simple questions. Like, when AAA was asked what her name was, she replied, "si Joseph ni-rape ak
could really be classified as a mental retardate. 25

For its part, the defense presented the appellant who categorically denied having raped AAA. Appellant averred that he does n
AAA filed such a serious charge against him. No cross-examination was conducted upon the appellant; thus, the defense forma
the medical findings of the NBI which showed that there was no sign of extragenital injuries on the victim at the time of her med

On 4 June 2004, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision convicting the appellant of only one count of rape, the decretal p

WHEREFORE, viewed from above observations and findings the [appellant] should be held liable for only one count of
acquitting him on the second information Criminal Case No. 99-175578 pertaining to the second insertion of the male o
In Criminal Case No. 99-175577:

Finding the prosecution's evidence sufficient to support the allegation in the information having committed sexual interc
capacity of a 6 years and 6 months although 31 years old with the aggravating qualifying circumstance of the [appellan
and or emotional disorder of the victim AAA, without any mitigating circumstance, he is hereby found guilty of rape unde
paragraph d, in relation to paragraph B-5 subparagraph 10, without applying the indeterminate sentence law, the [appe
penalty of DEATH.
xxxx
He is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim the sum of P50,000.00 representing civil liability.
In Criminal Case No. 99-175578:

The [appellant] is hereby acquitted in the above numbered criminal case.27 (Emphases supplied.)
The records of this case were originally transmitted to this Court on automatic review.

Pursuant to People v. Mateo,28 the records of the present case were transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action a
In his brief, appellant assigns the following errors, viz:
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE [APPELLANT'S] DEFENSE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE [APPELLANT] FOR THE CRIME CHARGED. 29

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, taking into consideration the assignment of errors stated by the appellant in his Appellant's B
records of the case, rendered a Decision on 27 September 2006, affirming the conviction of the appellant for one count of rape
knowledge of the victim's mental disability and/or emotional disorder, with the following modifications: (1) the penalty of reclusio
death penalty, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition thereof; and (2) the amount of c
the victim was increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 and appellant was ordered to pay the victim moral damages in the am
portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The appealed [D]ecision dated [4 June 2004] of the [R
Case No. 99-175577, finding the [appellant] guilty of one (1) count of Qualified Rape is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICA
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, in view of the abolition of the death penalty with the enactment of Republic Ac
ordered to pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity andP50,000.00 as moral damages.
Costs de oficio.30

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Decision, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. 31 The Court of Appeals then forwarded to this Court

On 11 July 2007,32 this Court resolved to accept the present case and notify the parties that they may file their respective suppl
the Office of the Solicitor General and the appellant manifested that they were adopting their respective briefs dated 27 June 20
respectively, as their supplemental briefs.
After a careful review of the records of this case, this Court affirms appellant's conviction.

The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent. 33Article 266-A,
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, states that:
ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed.
1) By a man who 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 otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumst

On the basis thereof, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledg
accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or whe
was demented.34Clearly, carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under the aforesaid provisions of law
necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of s
accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.35

In People v. Dalandas,36 citing People v. Dumanon,37 this Court held that mental retardation can be proven by evidence other th
the testimony of witnesses and even the observation by the trial court. 38

In the present case, both clinical and testimonial evidence were presented by the prosecution to prove that AAA is a mental ret
neuro-psychiatric examination and evaluation report made by the clinical psychologist, who conducted a series of psychologica
mental condition. Based on such series of psychological tests performed on AAA, she was found to be suffering from Moderate
and a mental age equivalent to that of a six-year-and-six-month-old child. The testimonies given by CCC and the clinical psych
AAA is, indeed, a mental retardate. CCC testified that her sister, although 31 years old already, was "isip bata" and had marked
events. Likewise, the clinical psychologist noticed that when she examined AAA, the latter gave long answers to simple questio
tests she gave the victim, she has no doubt that AAA is a mental retardate.

With the foregoing pieces of evidence offered by the prosecution, it is beyond cavil that they were able to prove that AAA is a m
that even the defense did not dispute the fact that the victim is suffering from mental retardation. Thus, this Court is in conformi
and the appellate court that AAA is unquestionably a mental retardate.

As it is settled that the victim in the present case is a mental retardate, the only thing that must be established is the fact of sex
and the victim.

In the case at bar, the appellant denied having raped the victim. He even argues that the trial court deprived him of his right to b
disregarded his defense of denial. This contention is specious.

Jurisprudence holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witness
that appellant was at the scene of the crime and was the victim's assailant. To merit credibility, it must be buttressed by strong e
a negative defense, denial must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, it would merit no weight in law a
value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. 39

As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, this Court has strongly ruled t
positive identification of the appellant, when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesse
alibi and denial.40

In this case, AAA positively identified the appellant as the person who had raped her. This can be proven by the following testim
Q:

I'l (sic) repeat the question. On [17 May 1999] at around 11:00 p.m. do you remember where you were?

A:

I was defecating Mam (sic) in the CR.

Q:

Where is your CR located?

A:

"Sa labas po."

xxxx
Q:

While you were defecating what unusual incident that happened if any?

A:

I shouted Mam (sic).

Q:

Why?

A:

I was afraid he will kill me.

Q:

Who?

A:

Joseph dela Paz.

Q:

Where is Joseph dela Paz now?

A:

Over there Mam (sic). (Witness pointing to a man who answered by the name Joseph dela Paz.)

Q:

What was Joseph doing to you at the (sic) time?

A:

He inserted his penis to my vagina, Mam (sic).

Q:

How did he do that?

A:

Dalawang beses po Mam (sic).

Q:

Were you wearing anything when he did this?

A:

Yes, Mam (sic).

Q:

What did he do?

A:

He took off my clothes.41

Moreover, even the appellant admitted that he did not know any reason why AAA or her family would charge him with such a gr
CCC, a brother of AAA. And absent any ill motive on the part of the victim or her family, the appellant's defense of denial canno
identification of the appellant.

Significantly, at the time that the appellant was punched by the brother of AAA when he was caught naked inside the comfort ro
immediately asked for forgiveness. It is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that a plea for forgiveness by the appellant may b
attempt to compromise. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be settled through m
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. 43 No person would ask for forgivene
wrong, for to forgive means to absolve; to pardon; to cease to feel resentment against on account of a wrong committed; to giv
from an offender.44 Thus, the trial court did not commit an error when it disregarded the appellant's defense of denial.

The appellant further contends that, granting arguendo that he can be held liable, his liability is only for the crime of attempted
findings revealed that the victim did not suffer perineal lacerations and that it was possible that the male organ was not inserted
Moreover, considering that the victim in this case is a mental retardate with an I.Q. of 40, she cannot be expected to know the d
the external area of her genitals and a successful penetration, however slight, as to consummate the crime of rape. The afores
deserve scant consideration.

A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rap
the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape. 45 Also, the rupture of

necessary for rape to be consummated.46 It is settled that a mere touching, no matter how slight, of the labia or lips of the fema
without rapture or laceration of the hymen is sufficient to consummate rape. Full penetration is not required, as proof of entranc
the male organ within the labiaor pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. In proving sexual intercourse, it is enough that the
male organ into the female sex organ.47

Furthermore, a medical examination is not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape. Insofar as the evidentiary weight of the m
have already ruled that a medical examination of the victim, as well as a medical certificate, is merely corroborative in characte
for conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and
the case.48

In the instant case, the medical findings revealed that the hymen of the complainant was still intact. Nevertheless, the same do
committed by the appellant against AAA, as the Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI who conducted the medical examination on AA
is stretchable, meaning, AAA's hymen can accommodate an average-sized Filipino male organ in full erection without breaking

More importantly, the victim positively identified the appellant as her assailant. That she had sexual intercourse with him was su
before the court a quo. The victim, though a mental retardate, was able to describe how she was ravished by the appellant.

It bears emphasis that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this
could communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations,
testimony, as someone feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she h
hands of the accused.49 Besides, having the mental age level of a six-year-and-six-month-old normal child would even bolster h
that a victim at such tender age would not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless that was the
tender age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter
were not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished to avenge her honor and to condemn a g

Moreover, the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of witnesses' testimonies is, as has repeatedly been held by this Court,
the absence of grave abuse of discretion on its part, it having had the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonia
the witnesses. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.
can be appreciated to warrant a departure from the findings of the trial court with respect to the assessment of AAA's testimony
and credible.

Given the foregoing, the prosecution's evidence has clearly established beyond doubt that AAA was mentally retarded because
psychological tests showed that she had a mental age equivalent to that of a six-year-and-six-month-old child. This Court has h
mental age of a woman above twelve years is that of a child below twelve years, even if she voluntarily submitted to the bestial
the circumstances of force or intimidation or the fact that the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, the accu
Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. The rationale, therefore, is
victim under twelve years of age is rape, then it should follow that carnal knowledge of a woman whose mental age is
would also constitute rape.52

Thus, this Court firmly believes that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals were correct in convicting the appellant for the
merely attempted rape.

Finally, the argument of the appellant that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew of the victim's

Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of rape qua
punishable by death under Article 266-B, paragraph 1053 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8
such knowledge of the offender is necessary, as a crime can only be qualified by circumstances pleaded in the indictment. A co
the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and hence a denial of due process. 54

In this case, knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of rape w

filed against the appellant. The said Information states:

On 16 May 1999, at [No.] xxx, xxx, xxx, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant] Joseph Dela Paz did t
feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, a thirty-one-year-old woman with a mental capacity of a child six years and
retardation, knowing at the time that she was mentally disabled x x x.55 (Emphasis supplied.)

Such knowledge of the victim's mental retardation was sufficiently proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The pr
appellant frequented the house of the victim because he was a friend and a drinking buddy of AAA's brother, CCC. The appella
house of the victim from the time that they came to know each other. The appellant and the victim also had conversations when

Worthy to note is the fact that AAA has an I.Q. of 40; thus, she does not belong to borderline cases of mental retardation, the I.
89,56 wherein it is difficult to determine whether the victim is of normal mind or is suffering from a mild mental retardation. Hence
appellate court, AAA's mental retardation was clearly apparent and noticeable to people who had interactions with her like here
therefore feign ignorance as regards AAA's mental condition.

All told, the prosecution was able to prove that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Articl
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. Taking into consideration the presence of the special qualifying circumstan
victim's mental retardation,57 the same being properly alleged in the Information charging the appellant of the crime of rape and
option but to impose on the appellant the supreme penalty of death.

With the enactment, however, of Republic Act No. 9346, the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited. Accordingly, t
appellate court that the penalty to be meted to appellant is reclusion perpetua. The same is in accordance with Section 2 of Re
under Section 3 of the said law, the appellant shall not be eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.58

This Court likewise affirms the civil indemnity awarded by the Court of Appeals to AAA in accordance with the ruling in People v

As to damages, [this Court] held that if the rape is perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying aggravating circumst
death penalty, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be P75,000. Thus, the trial court's award of P75,000 as civil indemn
Also, in rape cases moral damages are awarded without need of proof other than the fact of rape because it is assume
injuries entitling her to such an award. However, the trial court's award of P50,000 as moral damages should also be in
jurisprudence on qualified rape. Lastly, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 is also called for, by way of publi
from sexual abuse.

It should be noted that while the new law prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty provided for by law for a hein
offense is still heinous. Consequently, the civil indemnity for the victim is still P75,000.00.60

As a final point. This Court modifies the award of moral damages by the appellate court. We also find it proper to award exemp
appellate court merely imposed the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages. To conform with the ruling in People v. Sambrano,61
moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 and orders the appellant to also indemnify AAA in the amount of P25,000.00 a

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02164 dated 27 Septembe
dela Paz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of qualified rape committed against AAA, a thirty-one-year-old woman w
and six months old on account of mental retardation, knowing at the time that she was mentally retarded, and sentencing him t
perpetua, instead of death, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, is
the MODIFICATIONS that the amount of moral damages awarded is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, and that appel
victim, AAA in the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.