THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 145225
April 2, 2004
-versus-
SALVADOR GOLIMLIM
ALIAS “BADONG,”
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On appeal is the Decision[1]
of June 9, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon,
Branch
65 in Criminal Case No. 241, finding appellant Salvador Golimlim alias
“Badong” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, imposing on him the
penalty
of reclusion perpetua, and holding him civilly liable in the amount of
P50,000.00 as indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Information dated
April 16, 1997 filed against appellant reads as follows:
That sometime in the
month of August, 1996, at Barangay Bical, Municipality of Bulan,
Province
of Sorsogon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, by means of
violence and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, have carnal knowledge of one Evelyn Canchela against her
will
and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.cralaw:red
Contrary to law.[2]
Upon arraignment on
December 15, 1997,[3]
appellant, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense
charged.cralaw:red
The facts established
by the prosecution are as follows:
Private complainant
Evelyn G. Canchela (Evelyn), is a mental retardate. When her
mother,
Amparo Hachero, left for Singapore on May 2, 1996 to work as a domestic
helper, she entrusted Evelyn to the care and custody of her (Amparo’s)
sister Jovita Guban and her husband Salvador Golimlim, herein
appellant,
at Barangay Bical, Bulan, Sorsogon.[4]
Sometime in August 1996,
Jovita left the conjugal residence to meet a certain Rosing,[5]
leaving Evelyn with appellant. Taking advantage of the situation,
appellant instructed private complainant to sleep,[6]
and soon after she had laid down, he kissed her and took off her
clothes.[7]
As he poked at her an object which to Evelyn felt like a knife,[8]
he proceeded to insert his penis into her vagina.[9]
His lust satisfied, appellant fell asleep.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When Jovita arrived,
Evelyn told her about what appellant did to her. Jovita, however,
did not believe her and in fact she scolded her.[10]
Sometime in December
of the same year, Lorna Hachero, Evelyn’s half-sister, received a
letter
from their mother Amparo instructing her to fetch Evelyn from Sorsogon
and allow her to stay in Novaliches, Quezon City where she (Lorna)
resided.
Dutifully, Lorna immediately repaired to appellant’s home in Bical, and
brought Evelyn with her to Manila.cralaw:red
A week after she brought
Evelyn to stay with her, Lorna suspected that her sister was pregnant
as
she noticed her growing belly. She thereupon brought her to a
doctor
at the Pascual General Hospital at Baeza, Novaliches, Quezon City for
check-up
and ultrasound examination.cralaw:red
Lorna’s suspicions were
confirmed as the examinations revealed that Evelyn was indeed pregnant.[11]
She thus asked her sister how she became pregnant, to which Evelyn
replied
that appellant had sexual intercourse with her while holding a knife.[12]
In February of 1997,
the sisters left for Bulan, Sorsogon for the purpose of filing a
criminal
complaint against appellant. The police in Bulan, however,
advised
them to first have Evelyn examined. Obliging, the two repaired on
February 24, 1997 to the Municipal Health Office of Bulan, Sorsogon
where
Evelyn was examined by Dr. Estrella Payoyo.[13]
The Medico-legal Report revealed the following findings, quoted
verbatim:
FINDINGS:
LMP [last menstrual period]: Aug. 96?
Abd [abdomen]: 7 months
AOG [age of gestation]
FHT [fetal heart tone]:
148/min
Presentation: Cephalic
Hymen: old laceration
at 3, 5, 7, & 11 o’clock position[14]
On the same day, the
sisters went back to the Investigation Section of the Bulan Municipal
Police
Station before which they executed their sworn statements.[15]
On February 27, 1997,
Evelyn, assisted by Lorna, filed a criminal complaint for rape[16]
against appellant before the Municipal Trial Court of Bulan, Sorsogon,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 6272.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime or on
May 7, 1997, Evelyn gave birth to a girl, Joana Canchela, at Guruyan,
Juban,
Sorsogon.[17]
Appellant, on being
confronted with the accusation, simply said that it is not true
“[b]ecause
her mind is not normal,”[18]
she having “mentioned many other names of men who ha[d] sexual
intercourse
with her.”[19]
Finding for the prosecution,
the trial court, by the present appealed Decision, convicted appellant
as charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, accused Salvador Golimlim having been found guilty of the
crime
of RAPE (Art. 335 R.P.C. as amended by RA 7659) beyond reasonable doubt
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to
indemnify the offended party Evelyn Canchela in the amount of
P50,000.00
as indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damage[s], and to pay the
costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[20]
Hence, the present appeal,
appellant assigning to the trial court the following errors:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY
ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE CONTRADICTORY AND
IMPLAUSIBLE
TESTIMONY OF EVELYN CANCHELA, A MENTAL RETARDATE, [AND]
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME
CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[21]
Appellant argues that
Evelyn’s testimony is not categorical and is replete with
contradictions,
thus engendering grave doubts as to his criminal culpability.cralaw:red
In giving credence to
Evelyn’s testimony and finding against appellant, the trial court made
the following observations, quoted verbatim:
1)
Despite her weak and dull mental state the victim was consistent in her
claim that her Papay Badong (accused Salvador Golimlim) had carnal
knowledge
of her and was the author of her pregnancy, and nobody else (See: For
comparison
her Sworn Statement on p. 3/Record; her narration in the Psychiatric
Report
on pp. 47 & 48/Record; the TSNs of her testimony in open court);chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2)
She remains consistent that her Papay Badong raped her only once;
3)
That the contradictory statements she made in open court relative to
the
details of how she was raped, although would seem derogatory to her
credibility
and reliability as a witness under normal conditions, were amply
explained
by the psychiatrist who examined her and supported by her findings
(See:
Exhibits F to F-2);
4)
Despite her claim that several persons laid on top of her (which is
still
subject to question considering that the victim could not elaborate on
its meaning), the lucid fact remains that she never pointed to anybody
else as the author of her pregnancy, but her Papay Badong. Which
only shows that the trauma that was created in her mind by the incident
has remained printed in her memory despite her weak mental state.
Furthermore, granting for the sake of argument that other men also laid
on top of her, this does not deviate from the fact that her Papay
Badong
(the accused) had sexual intercourse with her.[22]
The trial judge’s assessment
of the credibility of witnesses’ testimonies is, as has repeatedly been
held by this Court, accorded great respect on appeal in the absence of
grave abuse of discretion on its part, it having had the advantage of
actually
examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of
the witnesses.[23]
In the present case,
no cogent reason can be appreciated to warrant a departure from the
findings
of the trial court with respect to the assessment of Evelyn’s testimony.cralaw:red
That Evelyn is a mental
retardate does not disqualify her as a witness nor render her testimony
bereft of truth.cralaw:red
Sections 20 and 21 of
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provide:
SEC. 20. Witnesses;
their qualifications. – Except as provided in the next succeeding
section,
all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
perception
to others, may be witnesses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
SEC. 21. Disqualification
by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. – The following persons
cannot
be witnesses:
(a)
Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for
examination,
is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their
perception
to others;
(b)
Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of
perceiving
the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them
truthfully.cralaw:red
In People v. Trelles,[24]
where the trial court relied heavily on the therein mentally retarded
private
complainant’s testimony irregardless of her “monosyllabic responses and
vacillations between lucidity and ambiguity,” this Court held:
A mental retardate or
a feebleminded person is not, per se, disqualified from being a
witness,
her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It
is now universally accepted that intellectual weakness, no matter what
form it assumes, is not a valid objection to the competency of a
witness
so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and
reasonable
narrative of the matter testified to.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It can not then be gainsaid
that a mental retardate can be a witness, depending on his or her
ability
to relate what he or she knows.[26]
If his or her testimony is coherent, the same is admissible in court.[27]
To be sure, modern rules
on evidence have downgraded mental incapacity as a ground to disqualify
a witness. As observed by McCormick, the remedy of excluding such
a witness who may be the only person available who knows the facts,
seems
inept and primitive. Our rules follow the modern trend of
evidence.[28]
Thus, in a long line
of cases,[29]
this Court has upheld the conviction of the accused based mainly on
statements
given in court by the victim who was a mental retardate.cralaw:red
From a meticulous scrutiny
of the records of this case, there is no reason to doubt Evelyn’s
credibility.
To be sure, her testimony is not without discrepancies, given of course
her feeblemindedness.cralaw:red
By the account of Dr.
Chona Cuyos-Belmonte, Medical Specialist II at the Psychiatric
Department
of the Bicol Medical Center, who examined Evelyn, although Evelyn was
suffering
from moderate mental retardation with an IQ of 46,[30]
she is capable of perceiving and relating events which happened to her.
Thus the doctor testified:
Q: So do
you try to impress that although she answers in general terms it does
not
necessarily mean that she might be inventing answers – only that she
could
not go to the specific details because of dullness?
A:
I don’t think she was inventing her answer because I conducted mental
status
examination for three (3) times and I tried to see the consistency in
the
narration but very poor (sic) in giving details.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: May we
know what she related to you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
She related to me that she was raped by her uncle ‘Tatay Badong’.
What she mentioned was that, and I quote: ‘hinila ang panty ko, pinasok
ang pisot at bayag niya sa pipi ko’. She would laugh
inappropriately
after telling me that particular incident. I also tried to ask
her
regarding the dates, the time of the incident, but she could not
really….
I tried to elicit those important things, but the patient had a hard
time
remembering those dates.cralaw:red
Q: But considering
that you have evaluated her mentally, gave her I.Q. test, in your
honest
opinion, do you believe that this narration by the patient to you about
the rape is reliable?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Why do
you consider that reliable?
A:
Being a (sic) moderately retarded, I have noticed the spontaneity of
her
answers during the time of the testing. She was not even
hesitating
when she told me she was raped once at home by her Tatay Badong; and
she
was laughing when she told me about how it was done on (sic) her.
So, although she may be inappropriate but (sic) she was spontaneous,
she
was consistent.cralaw:red
Q: Now,
I would like to relate to you an incident that happened in this Court
for
you to give us your expert opinion. I tried to present the victim
in this case to testify. While she testified that she was raped
by
her uncle Badong, when asked about the details, thereof, she would not
make (sic) the detail. She only answered ‘wala’ (no). I ask
this question because somehow this seems related to your previous
evaluation
that while she gave an answer, she gave no detail. Now, I was
thinking
because I am a man and I was the one asking and the Judge is a man
also.
And while the mother would say that she would relate to her and she
related
to you, can you explain to us why when she was presented in court that
occurrence, that event happened?
A:
There are a lot of possible answers to that question; one, is the
court’s
atmosphere itself. This may have brought a little anxiety on the
part of the patient and this inhibits her from relating some of the
details
relative to the incident-in-question. When I conducted my
interview
with the patient, there were only two (2) of us in the room. I
normally
do not ask this question during the first session with the patient
because
these are emotionally leading questions, and I do not expect the
patient
to be very trusting. So, I usually ask this type of questions
during
the later part of my examination to make her relax during my
evaluation.
So in this way, she will be more cooperative with me. I don’t
think
that this kind of atmosphere within the courtroom with some people
around,
this could have inhibited the patient from answering questions.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: What
if the victim is being coached or led by someone else, will she be able
to answer the questions?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
Yes, she may be able to answer the questions, but you would notice the
inconsistency of the answers because what we normally do is that we
present
the questions in different ways, and we expect the same answer.
This
is how we try to evaluate the patient. If the person, especially
a retarded, is being coached by somebody, the answers will no longer be
consistent.cralaw:red
Q: You also
mentioned a while ago that the answers given by the patient, taken all
in all, were consistent?
A:
Yes, sir.[31]
(Underscoring supplied)
As noted in the above-quoted
testimony of Dr. Belmonte, Evelyn could give spontaneous and consistent
answers to the same but differently framed questions under conditions
which
do not inhibit her from answering. It could have been in this
light
that Evelyn was able to relate in court, upon examination by a female
government
prosecutor and the exclusion of the public from the proceedings, on Dr.
Belmonte’s suggestion,[32]
how, as quoted below, she was raped and that it was appellant who did
it:
Q: Lorna
Hachero testified before this Court that you gave birth to a baby girl
named Johanna, is this true?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
(The witness nods, yes)
x x x
Q: Who is
the father of Johanna?
A:
Papay Badong
Q: Who is
this Papay Badong that you are referring to?
A:
The husband of Mamay Bita.cralaw:red
Q: Is he
here in court?
A:
He is here.cralaw:red
Q: Please
look around and point him to us.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
(The witness pointing to the lone man sitting in the first row of the
gallery
wearing a regular prison orange t-shirt who gave his name as Salvador
Golimlim
when asked.)
Q: Why were
you able to say that it is Papay Badong who is the father of your child
Johanna?
A:
Because then I was left at Mamay Bita’s house, although I am not there
now.cralaw:red
Q: And that
house where you were left is also the house of your Papay Badong?
A:
Yes ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: What
did Salvador Golimlim or your Papay Badong do to you that’s why you
were
able to say that he is the father of your child?
A:
I was undressed by him.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: What
did you do after you were undressed?
A:
I was scolded by the wife, Mamay Bita.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: I am
referring to that very moment when you were undressed. Immediately
after
your Papay Badong undressed you, what did you do?
x x x
A:
He laid on top of me.cralaw:red
Q: What
was your position when he laid on top of you?
A:
I was lying down.cralaw:red
Q: Then
after he went on top of you, what did he do there?
A:
He made (sic) sexual intercourse with me.cralaw:red
Q: When
you said he had a (sic) sexual intercourse with you, what did he do
exactly?
A:
He kissed me.cralaw:red
Q: Where?
A:
On the cheeks (witness motioning indicating her cheeks).cralaw:red
Q: What
else did he do? Please describe before this Honorable Court the sexual
intercourse which you are referring to which the accused did to you.cralaw:red
A:
‘Initoy’ and he slept after that.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(to Court)
Nevertheless, may we
request that the local term for sexual intercourse, the word ‘Initoy’
which
was used by the witness be put on the record, and we request judicial
notice
of the fact that ‘initoy’ is the local term for sexual intercourse.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: What
did you feel when your Papay Badong had sexual intercourse with you?
A:
I felt a knife; it was like a knife.cralaw:red
Q: Where
did you feel that knife?
A:
I forgot.cralaw:red
Q: Why did
you allow your Papay Badong to have sexual intercourse with you?
A:
I will not consent to it.cralaw:red
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Did you
like what he did to you?
A:
I do not want it.cralaw:red
Q: But why
did it happen?
A:
I was forced to.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: Did you
feel anything when he inserted into your vagina when your Papay Badong
laid on top of you?
A:
His sexual organ/penis.cralaw:red
Q: How did
you know that it was the penis of your Papay Badong that was entered
into
your vagina?
A:
It was put on top of me.cralaw:red
Q: Did it
enter your vagina?
A:
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Madam
Witness, is it true that your Papay Badong inserted his penis into your
vagina or sexual organ during that time that he was on top of you?
A:
(The witness nods, yes.)[33]
(Underscoring supplied)
Appellant’s bare denial
is not only an inherently weak defense. It is not supported by
clear
and convincing evidence. It cannot thus prevail over the positive
declaration of Evelyn who convincingly identified him as her rapist.[34]
In convicting appellant
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
7659 (the law in force when the crime was committed in 1996), the trial
court did not specify under which mode the crime was committed.
Under
the said article, rape is committed thus:
ART. 335. When and how
rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances.cralaw:red
1.
By using force or intimidation;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3.
When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.cralaw:red
The crime of rape shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
Whenever the crime of
rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua or death.cralaw:red
x x x
It is settled that sexual
intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes
statutory
rape which does not require proof that the accused used force or
intimidation
in having carnal knowledge of the victim for conviction.[35]
The fact of Evelyn’s mental retardation was not, however, alleged in
the
Information and, therefore, cannot be the basis for conviction.
Such
notwithstanding, that force and intimidation attended the commission of
the crime, the mode of commission alleged in the Information, was
adequately
proven. It bears stating herein that the mental faculties of a
retardate
being different from those of a normal person, the degree of force
needed
to overwhelm him or her is less. Hence, a quantum of force which
may not suffice when the victim is a normal person, may be more than
enough
when employed against an imbecile.[36]
Still under the above-quoted
provision of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, when the crime of rape
is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be
reclusion
perpetua to death. In the case at bar, however, although there is
adequate evidence showing that appellant indeed used force and
intimidation,
that is not the case with respect to the use of a deadly weapon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 65
in
Criminal Case No. 241 finding appellant, Salvador Golimlim alias
“Badong,”
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape, which this Court finds to have
been committed under paragraph 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code,
and holding him civilly liable therefor, is hereby AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
Costs against appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
J., (Acting Chairman),
and Corona, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., (Chairman),
on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 31-45.
[2]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Records at 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, August 12, 1998 at 12.
[5]
TSN, October 14, 1998 at 6.
[6]
TSN, January 27, 1999 at 9.
[7]
Id. at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 10 and 13.
[10]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, June 2, 1998 at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
TSN, August 12, 1998 at 3.
[14]
Exhibit “E”, Records at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Exhibit “B”, Records at 12.
[16]
Records at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Exhibit “D”, Records at 127.
[18]
TSN, September 20, 1999 at 4.
[19]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rollo at 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id. at 80.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 38-39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People v. De Guzman, 372 SCRA 95, 101 (2001), People v. Balisnomo, 265
SCRA 98, 104 (1996) (citations omitted).
[24]
340 SCRA 652 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 658 (citations omitted).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People v. Delos Santos, 364 SCRA 142, 156 (2001).
[27]
People v. Lubong, 332 SCRA 672, 690 (2000) (citation omitted).
[28]
People v. Espanola, 271 SCRA 689, 709 (1997) (citations omitted).
[29]
People v. Agravante, 338 SCRA 13 (2000), People v. Padilla, 301 SCRA
265
(1999), People v. Malapo, 294 SCRA 579 (1998), People v. Balisnomo, 265
SCRA 98 (1996), People v. Gerones, 193 SCRA 263 (1991).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
TSN, December 21, 1998 at 10.
[31]
Id. at 9-21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Id. at 13-14.
[33]
TSN, January 27, 1999 at 4-13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People v. De Guzman, 372 SCRA 95, 111 (2001) (citations omitted),
People
v. Glabo, 371 SCRA 567, 573 (2001) (citations omitted), People v.
Lalingjaman,
364 SCRA 535, 546 (2001) (citations omitted), People v. Agravante, 338
SCRA 13, 20 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
People v. Lubong, 332 SCRA 672, 692 (2000) (citations omitted), People
v. Padilla, 301 SCRA 265, 273 (1999) (citation omitted).
[36]
People v. Moreno, 294 SCRA 728, 739 (1998). |