People of the Philippines vs. Dionesio Roy y Peralta

In statutory rape, the prosecution need only prove that the offended party is under 12 years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; proof of force, threat, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary because the law presumes absence of free consent. The exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility requires complete deprivation of reason at the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the offense, and a finding of incompetency to stand trial does not satisfy that burden.

Dionesio Roy y Peralta lived a block away from AAA’s family in Intramuros, Manila, and AAA’s mother had known him since she was 18 years old. The charge against him arose under the Revised Penal Code’s statutory rape provisions, which presume absence of free consent when the victim is below 12 years of age, and implicated Article 12(1)’s exemption for imbeciles or insane persons unless they acted during a lucid interval. The case also required application of the presumption of sanity under Article 800 of the Civil Code and prevailing jurisprudence on damages for rape convictions.

Dionesio Roy y Peralta was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila, with statutory rape in an Information alleging that on or about June 30, 2010, in the City of Manila, he had carnal knowledge of AAA, a nine-year-old minor, by pulling her inside a building at Intramuros, covering her mouth, removing her shorts and panty, making her sit on his lap, kissing her lips, and forcibly inserting his penis into her vagina against her will and consent. He pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed.

According to the prosecution, at around 4 p.m. on June 30, 2010, AAA was strolling in Intramuros when someone dragged her into a break or opening in a wall. She recognized her assailant as appellant, whom she called Roy and who lived a block away from her family’s house. After dragging her into the opening, appellant removed her clothes. AAA shouted, but appellant covered her mouth and removed his own shorts and briefs. He then pulled her hair and made her sit on his lap, facing him. With her legs spread apart, appellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina. He also held her by the waist and kissed her lips. There was no full penetration; AAA testified that he only “dipped” his penis into her organ. Appellant then sensed that someone saw them, stood up, and put on his clothes. A security guard arrived and handcuffed appellant.

Bartulay testified that at around 9 in the morning of June 30, 2010, he proceeded from Letran College to San Gabriel Street in Intramuros to urinate. He saw appellant, who was naked and only a meter and a half away from him, sitting undressed with a naked child on his lap. Bartulay saw that appellant had covered the child’s mouth while the child appeared to be in pain. He described that appellant appeared to be pulling out something in front of the child while the child’s legs had stretched out. He reported the scene to a security guard and identified his Sinumpaang Salaysay. AAA’s mother, BBB, presented a Certificate of Live Birth showing that AAA was born on May 13, 2001. She testified that when the alleged rape happened, she was at the inauguration of President Aquino at Luneta Park; before attending, she left AAA sleeping at her mother’s house in Intramuros. She had known appellant since she was 18 years old and would usually see him near her residence. When she heard that her daughter had been molested, she accompanied AAA to the Philippine General Hospital for examination and assisted AAA in executing a sworn statement. Dr. Merle Tan, the examining physician, testified that she attended to AAA on June 30, 2010, and summarized her findings in a report which concluded that “congenital findings are diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma.”

For the defense, appellant initially raised alibi. He testified that while he recognized AAA, he did not rape her. At the time of the alleged rape, he was only defecating, but he was inconsistent on whether this was at home or at the hole where he was arrested. Because he gave conflicting answers, the defense prayed that the RTC refer him for psychiatric examination to determine his mental status and level of comprehension, which the RTC granted in an Order dated November 16, 2012. Dr. Grace Punzalan Domingo of the National Center for Mental Health testified that appellant had undergone a battery of tests and examinations and concluded that the results showed appellant to be suffering from imbecility, or moderate mental retardation. She clarified that while this was irreversible, appellant can be taught, and recommended continuous treatment. On cross, she testified that the finding of imbecility only covered appellant’s mental status at the time he underwent mental evaluation, and not necessarily at the time of the offense, meaning that at the time of the rape, appellant probably knew what he was doing and the consequences thereof. On redirect, she testified that she could not conclude absolutely that appellant was aware of his actions since he was not brought to the Center immediately after the rape. On re-cross, she maintained her general response.

The RTC found that the prosecution had proved appellant’s culpability for statutory rape: AAA was only nine years old at the time, appellant was the perpetrator, and he had carnal knowledge of AAA. It accorded full faith and credence to AAA’s testimony, which was validated by Dr. Tan’s medical findings and corroborated by Bartulay. The RTC found the defense of imbecility unavailing because there was no clear and competent proof that appellant had no control over his mental faculties immediately prior to or during the perpetration of the crime. The CA likewise found that all the elements of statutory rape had been established beyond reasonable doubt and that appellant failed to establish that he was deprived of reason when he committed the crime.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Accused-appellant Dionesio Roy y Peralta argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt.
• Insanity/Imbecility: He maintained that he was exempt from criminal liability due to insanity, as he was suffering from moderate mental retardation and had the mental age of a seven-year-old, as supported by Dr. Domingo’s medical report.
• Absence of Force, Violence, and Intimidation: He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the employment of force, violence, and intimidation to consummate rape, noting there was no indication that a weapon was used to force AAA to submit to his advances.
• Alibi/Defense Version: In the defense, he initially raised alibi, testifying that he recognized AAA but did not rape her and that at the time of the alleged rape he was only defecating, although he was inconsistent on whether this was at home or at the hole where he was arrested.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Office of the Solicitor General asserted that appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Elements of Statutory Rape: The OSG argued that proof of force, intimidation, and consent is not necessary for conviction of statutory rape.
• Consummation Despite No Full Penetration: The OSG opined that rape was consummated despite AAA’s testimony that there was no full penetration of her genital organ.
• Insanity/Imbecility: The OSG argued that appellant cannot plead the exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility because he failed to overcome the presumption of sanity at the time of the commission of the carnal act.

• Elements of Statutory Rape: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of statutory rape, specifically that AAA was under 12 years of age and that appellant had carnal knowledge of her, even without proof of force, violence, or intimidation.
• Credibility of Prosecution Evidence: Whether the lower courts erred in giving full faith and credence to AAA’s testimony and in finding it corroborated by the eyewitness and medical evidence.
• Exempting Circumstance of Insanity/Imbecility: Whether appellant is exempt from criminal liability under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code by reason of insanity or imbecility.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and interest were proper.

• Elements of Statutory Rape: Yes. The prosecution established that AAA was under 12 and that appellant had carnal knowledge of her; force, threat, intimidation, and consent are not elements of statutory rape.
• Credibility of Prosecution Evidence: Yes. The lower courts’ credibility findings are entitled to great weight and are supported by AAA’s categorical testimony, Bartulay’s corroboration, and Dr. Tan’s medical findings.
• Exempting Circumstance of Insanity/Imbecility: No. Appellant failed to overcome the presumption of sanity and to prove complete deprivation of reason at the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the rape.
• Penalty and Damages: Yes, with modification. Reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed; civil indemnity and moral damages of P75,000 each were affirmed, exemplary damages were increased to P75,000, and all damages earn 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.

• Elements of Statutory Rape: The elements of statutory rape are: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. Because the law presumes absence of free consent when the victim is below 12, force, intimidation, and consent are not elements of statutory rape. AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth established that she was born on May 13, 2001, making her nine years old at the time of the June 30, 2010 incident. AAA testified that appellant dragged her into an opening, removed her clothes, made her sit on his lap, tried to insert his penis into her vagina, and “dipped” his penis into her organ. The absence of full penetration does not negate carnal knowledge. Her testimony was corroborated by Bartulay and by Dr. Tan’s medico-legal report, which was diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma. Thus, the absence of proof of force and intimidation did not militate against the finding of rape.

• Credibility of Prosecution Evidence: Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, because when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed; youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Both the RTC and the CA found AAA to be a credible witness whose testimony categorically and consistently identified appellant as her assailant and persuasively narrated her ordeal. AAA’s testimony was rendered more persuasive by Bartulay’s corroboration and by Dr. Tan’s examination and medico-legal report. Questions on the credibility of witnesses are best addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe the witnesses’ deportment on the stand. No cogent reason existed to depart from the uniform findings of the lower courts.

• Exempting Circumstance of Insanity/Imbecility: Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code exempts an imbecile or insane person from criminal liability unless the person acted during a lucid interval. The exempting circumstance requires a complete deprivation of rationality in committing the act: the accused must be deprived of reason, have no consciousness of responsibility for his acts, or have a complete absence of the power to discern. The law presumes that every person is sane, and anyone who pleads insanity bears the burden to prove that he was completely deprived of reason when he committed the crime charged. The proof of insanity must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the offense. Here, the defense failed to overcome the presumption of sanity. Dr. Domingo’s report concluded that appellant suffered from imbecility or moderate mental retardation at the time of evaluation and that he was incompetent to stand trial, but it did not conclude that he was afflicted with imbecility or unaware of what he was doing at the time he raped AAA. On cross, Dr. Domingo stated that the finding covered appellant’s mental status at the time of evaluation, not necessarily at the time of the offense, and that he probably knew what he was doing and its consequences. The report’s incompetency finding merely meant that appellant’s mental state was not fit for trial; it did not mean he was completely deprived of reason and freedom of will at the time he committed the crime. Appellant’s actions at the moment of the rape revealed awareness: he dragged AAA into a secluded spot to isolate them, and when AAA tried to call for help, he covered her mouth to ensure they would not be disturbed. Such precautions negated complete destruction of intelligence at the time of the rape.

• Penalty and Damages: The conviction for statutory rape warranted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Under prevailing jurisprudence, when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the proper amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be P75,000.00 each. The CA correctly modified the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000.00 each. The award of exemplary damages, however, should be increased from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00. In addition, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages payable by appellant are subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Statutory Rape — Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. Because the law presumes absence of free consent when the victim is below 12, force, intimidation, and consent are not elements of the crime. The Court applied this doctrine because AAA was nine years old and appellant had carnal knowledge of her, even though there was no full penetration and no proof of force or intimidation.

• Credibility of Child Victim’s Testimony — Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit; when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. The Court relied on this doctrine because both lower courts found AAA credible, categorical, and consistent, and her testimony was corroborated by Bartulay and Dr. Tan.

• Exempting Circumstance of Insanity or Imbecility — Under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code, an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless the person acted during a lucid interval. The exemption requires a complete deprivation of rationality in committing the act: the accused must be deprived of reason, have no consciousness of responsibility for his acts, or have a complete absence of the power to discern. The Court applied this doctrine because Dr. Domingo’s report did not establish that appellant was completely deprived of reason at the time of the rape; it only showed that he was suffering from imbecility or moderate mental retardation at the time of evaluation and was incompetent to stand trial.

• Presumption of Sanity — Every person is presumed sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden to prove that he was completely deprived of reason when he committed the crime charged. The proof of insanity must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the offense. The Court applied this doctrine because appellant failed to overcome the presumption of sanity, and his medical evidence did not establish his mental state at the time of the rape.

• Damages for Statutory Rape under Reclusion Perpetua — When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the proper amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be P75,000.00 each. All damages awarded are subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the Decision until fully paid. The Court applied this doctrine by affirming civil indemnity and moral damages of P75,000.00 each, increasing exemplary damages to P75,000.00, and imposing 6% interest per annum.

• "The prosecution satisfactorily established the elements of the crime of statutory rape, namely: '(1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse.'" — States the elements of statutory rape and the quantum of proof required, which is the core of the conviction.

• "As the law presumes absence of free consent when the victim is below the age of 12, it is not necessary to prove force, intimidation or consent as they are not elements of statutory rape." — Rejects appellant’s argument that absence of proof of force and intimidation negated the crime.

• "[It] requires a complete deprivation of rationality in committing the act, i.e. that the accused be deprived of reason, that there be no consciousness of responsibility for his acts, or that there be complete absence of the power to discern." — Defines the stringent standard for the exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility.

• "The law presumes that every person is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden to prove that he was completely deprived of reason when he committed the crime charged." — Allocates the burden of proof and explains why appellant’s mental retardation evidence failed.

• People vs. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 214762, September 20, 2017 — Cited for the elements of statutory rape: the offended party is under 12 years of age and the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of force, threat, intimidation, or grave abuse of authority.
• People vs. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 584 (2014) — Cited for the rule that force, intimidation, or consent need not be proved in statutory rape because the law presumes absence of free consent when the victim is below 12.
• People vs. Vergara, 724 Phil. 702, 709 (2014) — Cited for the doctrine that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, and that youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity.
• People vs. Barcela, 734 Phil. 332, 342 (2014) — Cited for the rule that credibility of witnesses is best addressed to the trial court, which can observe their deportment on the stand.
• People vs. Legaspi, 409 Phil. 254, 268 (2001) — Cited for the standard of insanity: complete deprivation of rationality in committing the act.
• People vs. Pambid, 384 Phil. 702, 728 (2000) — Cited for the rule that one pleading insanity bears the burden to prove complete deprivation of reason at the time of the crime.
• People vs. Isla, 699 Phil. 256, 267 (2012) — Cited for the requirement that proof of insanity must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the offense.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016) — Cited for the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages when reclusion perpetua is imposed without ordinary aggravating circumstances.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 282 (2013) — Cited for the imposition of 6% interest per annum on damages from finality of the decision until fully paid.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code — Cited in the dispositive as the statutory rape provision under which appellant was found guilty. The Court affirmed the conviction for statutory rape, which requires carnal knowledge of a victim under 12 years of age.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Cited by the RTC and in the Court’s discussion as the provision under which appellant was convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for statutory rape.
• Article 12, Paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Exempts an imbecile or insane person from criminal liability unless the person acted during a lucid interval. Applied: appellant failed to prove complete deprivation of reason at the time of the rape; the presumption of sanity stood.
• Article 800, Civil Code — Provides that every person is presumed sane. Applied: appellant bore the burden to prove insanity; his evidence did not overcome the presumption.
• Republic Act No. 7610, Republic Act No. 9262, and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC — Cited in the footnote for withholding the identity of the victim and her immediate family; the decision used the initials AAA and BBB.

Leonardo-De Castro (Acting Chairperson), Jardeleza, Tijam, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.