The Supreme Court affirmed Caoile's conviction of two counts of raping his mentally disabled 18-year old neighbor who had a mental age of 7. The Court found that the victim's testimony was credible despite her mental disability. Medical evidence from three experts, including one chosen by the defense, confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded. The Court rejected Caoile's claims that he was unaware of her disability and that they had a romantic relationship.
The Supreme Court affirmed Caoile's conviction of two counts of raping his mentally disabled 18-year old neighbor who had a mental age of 7. The Court found that the victim's testimony was credible despite her mental disability. Medical evidence from three experts, including one chosen by the defense, confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded. The Court rejected Caoile's claims that he was unaware of her disability and that they had a romantic relationship.
The Supreme Court affirmed Caoile's conviction of two counts of raping his mentally disabled 18-year old neighbor who had a mental age of 7. The Court found that the victim's testimony was credible despite her mental disability. Medical evidence from three experts, including one chosen by the defense, confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded. The Court rejected Caoile's claims that he was unaware of her disability and that they had a romantic relationship.
CAOILE June 5, 2013 | Leonardo-de Castro, J. | Appeal from CA | Rape
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENT: Moises Caoile SUMMARY: Caoile was charged with two counts of rape of a demented person (an eighteen year old with a mental age of seven). The victim AAA was his neighbor and playmate of his daughter Marivic. The SC affirmed his conviction. DOCTRINES: Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The absence of reason or free will determines rape, such as when caused by some mental deficiency, despite a sweetheart defense that the parties are lovers. In this case, her failure to offer resistance to the act did not mean consent for she was incapable of giving any rational consent. The perpetrator’s knowledge of the victim’s mental disability, at the time he committed the rape, qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death, although there was no evidence of such a qualifying circumstance in this case.
FACTS: score performance of 55, within the
mental retardation range (mental age of 1. The accused-appellant challenges in this appeal the March a child aged 7 years 9 months). 21, 2012 Decision1 promulgated by the Court of Appeals ii. Dr. Roderico V. Ramos, a psychiatrist affirming with modification his conviction for two counts of the ITRMC, testified that after of Rape rendered against him by Branch 32 of the Agoo, psychiatric evaluation, [AAA] was La Union RTC in Family Court Case Nos. A-496 and A- diagnosed with moderate mental 497. retardation (5-6 years old mental age). 2. Caoile in two separate Amended Informations filed before 6. Caoile argued that he was courting [AAA] and that they the RTC on January 5, 2006, was charged with two became lovers, [AAA] staying at his house when Caoile’s separate counts of Rape of a Demented Person under wife would leave to work in the town proper of Rosario, Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code. La Union. He claimed he did not know [AAA] was 3. [AAA], the herein victim, lived with her grandmother and demented as she acted like a normal individual and auntie in Alipang, Rosario, La Union when her mother finished elementary education. left to work abroad. One of their neighbors was the a. He gave her money, chocolates or candies when accused whose daughter, Marivic, was the playmate of she came over. Time came when [AAA] would [AAA]. The accused invited [AAA] three times to come stay at the accused’s house, from Monday to with him (first she was invited to the bamboo trees, then Sunday, with or without the children, and they to gather guavas at the mountain, and then to gather santol found themselves falling in love with one other. fruits), and raped her on each occasion. b. As lovers, they had their intimate moments, and 4. Sometime in April 2005, [AAA] heard her friend, [BBB], their first sexual intercourse happened on April complaining to Lucio Bafalar, a Barangay Tanod, that the 6, 2005 on the mountain. From then on, the accused mashed her breast. Upon hearing the story of accused and [AAA] repeatedly had sexual [BBB], [AAA] blurted out that she, too, was abused. intercourse, and most of which were initiated by 5. [CCC], [AAA]’s aunt, learned that her niece was [AAA], especially their sexual intimacies in Agri raped by the accused, and together with [AAA] and Motel, Pangasinan. Barangay Captain Roming Bartolome they went to 7. As prayed for the defense, [AAA] was evaluated by Dr. the Rosario Police Station to report the incident. Lowell A. Rebucal of the Department of Psychiatry, a. After examining [AAA] on June 21, 2005, Dr. Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center, chosen by Claire Maramat found out that [AAA]’s genitalia the defense. In his Psychiatric Evaluation Report, Dr. suffered a multiple hymenal laceration a week or Rebucal concluded that [AAA] is suffering from Mild months prior to the examination. Moreover, there Mental Retardation. was presence of spermatozoa, which means that 8. On May 6, 2009, the RTC rendered Decision finding [AAA] had sexual intercourse, and Caoile guilty of two counts of rape: predominance of coccobacilli, meaning that 9. In its Decision dated March 21, 2012, the Court of [AAA] could be suffering from infection, Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC decision. possibly transmitted through intercourse. b. There were two certifications of [AAA]’s mental ISSUE: WON Caoile was properly convicted of two counts of condition: rape—YES. i. Claire Baliaga, a psychologist of the Philippine Mental Health Association, ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT: Caoile is attacking the Baguio-Benguet Chapter, testified that credibility of AAA, and claims that she might not be a mental she conducted a psychological retardate at all, having been able to give categorical and evaluation on [AAA] on August 10, straightforward answers during her testimony. Moreover, 2007; that [AAA] obtained an overall Caoile avers that it has not been shown that AAA underwent the proper clinical, laboratory, and psychometric tests to arrive stated in the Amended Informations were at the conclusion that she fell within the range of mental averments sufficient to inform Caoile of the retardation. Caoile argues that while it is true that his denial nature of the charges against him. and sweetheart defenses are generally deemed weak and 2. AAA is a mental retardate. The fact that AAA was able unavailing, his conviction should nevertheless be founded on to answer in a straightforward manner during her the strength of the prosecution’s evidence and not on the flaws testimony cannot be used against her. of his defenses a. It bears emphasis that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision witnesses have been upheld by this Court where of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with it is shown that they can communicate their MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant MOISES CAOILE is ordeal capably and consistently. It even lends found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of greater credence to her testimony, that, someone simple rape under subparagraph (b) of Article 266-A of the as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua for tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the each count of rape. The award of civil indemnity and moral rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at damages, both in the amount of ₱50,000, and exemplary the hands of the accused (People v. Castillo) damages in the amount of ₱30,000, all for each count of rape, b. AAA’s medical condition was verified not only are maintained, subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum by one expert, but three witnesses – a from the date of finality of this judgment. No costs. psychologist and two psychiatrists, one of whom was even chosen by the defense and testified for HELD: the defense. All three experts confirmed that AAA suffered from mental retardation. Caoile 1. The information was sufficient to charge Caoile with cannot properly impeach his own witness rape. Caoile was charged in the Amended Informations without violating established rules of evidence. with rape of a demented person under paragraph 1(d). The c. The experts’ findings on AAA’s mental term demented17 refers to a person who has dementia, condition were based on several tests and which is a condition of deteriorated mentality, examinations, including the Stanford-Binet Test, characterized by marked decline from the individual’s which Caoile, relying on this Court’s ruling in former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, People v. Cartuano, Jr., considered as one of the madness, or insanity.18 On the other hand, the phrase more reliable standardized tests. Besides, People deprived of reason under paragraph 1(b) has been v. Cartuano applies only to cases where there is a interpreted to include those suffering from mental dearth of medical records to sustain a finding of abnormality, deficiency, or retardation.19 Thus, AAA, mental retardation as the records in that case who was clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can were wanting in clinical, laboratory, and be properly classified as a person who is "deprived of psychometric support to sustain a finding that the reason," under 1(d) and not one who is "demented. victim had been suffering from mental a. The mistake, however, will not exonerate Caoile. retardation. It is noted that in People v. Delos He did not even raise this as an objection. Santos, the Court upheld the finding that the b. More importantly, none of his rights, particularly victim had been mentally retarded by an that of to be informed of the nature and cause of examining psychiatrist who had been able to the accusation against him, was violated. identify the tests administered to the victim and Although the Amended Informations stated that to sufficiently explain the results of the tests. he was being charged with the crime of rape of a 3. A sweetheart defense will not exculpate him from demented person under paragraph 1(d), it also liability. Carnal knowledge of a female, even when done stated that his victim was "a person with a without force or intimidation, is rape nonetheless, if it was mental age of seven (7) years old." This Court, in done without her consent. Carnal knowledge of a woman People v. Valdez, held: For a complaint or information to be so weak in intellect as to be incapable of legal consent sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the designation of the constitutes rape. Her failure to offer resistance to the act offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the did not mean consent for she was incapable of giving any approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place rational consent (People v. Butiong). wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is the 4. Caoile’s allegation that he did not know that AAA was description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such mentally retarded will not suffice to overturn his form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to conviction. The perpetrator’s knowledge of the victim’s know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be mental disability, at the time he committed the rape, sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of merely qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by the crime charged. This requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the death under Article 266-B, paragraph 10. There is no accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his sufficient evidence to establish the qualifying defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent circumstance of knowledge by Caoile of AAA’s mental knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. c. The erroneous reference to paragraph 1(d) in the disability. The trial court and the Court of Appeals which Amended Informations, did not cause material did not make any finding on the said qualifying and substantial harm to Caoile. Firstly, he simply circumstance correctly convicted said accused of simple ignored the error. Secondly, particular facts rape only.