People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Obogne

A mental retardate may be a competent and credible witness, and mental retardation per se does not affect a witness' credibility; however, the victim's mental disability qualifies rape under Article 266-B(10) of the Revised Penal Code only if the offender's knowledge of it is specifically alleged in the Information and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The charge arose under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, now embodied in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, which treats knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the crime as a qualifying circumstance. Republic Act No. 9346, approved June 24, 2006, prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. The victim's real name and those of her immediate family are withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 and Republic Act No. 9262.

On or about July 29, 2002, in the afternoon, in barangay Ogbong, Viga, Catanduanes, appellant Jerry Obogne was alleged to have had carnal knowledge of AAA, a 12-year-old mentally retarded girl, by means of force and intimidation. AAA testified that while she was playing, appellant saw her and asked her to go with him because he would give her a sugar cane. Appellant brought her to his house, where he removed her panty and inserted his penis into her vagina; he then got a knife and a sugar cane, gave the latter to her, and she went home. The incident was reported to the police a long time after it occurred.

Appellant denied the charge and interposed alibi, claiming that he was in barangay Ananong at the time of the incident. The trial court found, however, that the distance between barangay Ananong and barangay Ogbong was only four kilometers and could be traversed in one hour or even less.

When AAA was presented as a witness on November 14, 2006, defense counsel objected and called the Court's attention to Section 21, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, arguing that her mental condition rendered her incapable of intelligently making known her perceptions to others. The trial court nonetheless found AAA a very credible witness, noting that she managed to recount the ordeal she had gone through in a soft voice and halting manner and that her simple account clearly reflected sincerity and truthfulness. While AAA faltered in the sequence of events on cross-examination, the trial court considered this understandable, as even one with normal mental condition could not recall past events with a hundred percent accuracy; AAA was certain that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and that it was a long time after the incident when it was reported to the police. The Court of Appeals, on its own evaluation of the records, likewise found AAA able to perceive, to make known her perception to others, and to remember traumatic incidents, and held that her testimony was replete with consistent details negating the probability of fabrication.

The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape, ruling that AAA's mental disability could not be considered a qualifying circumstance because the Information failed to allege that appellant knew of such mental condition at the time of the commission of the crime. The Court of Appeals affirmed this finding.

• Credibility of AAA: Appellant argued that the testimony of AAA deserved no credence because she was incapable of intelligently making known her perception to others by reason of her mental disability.
• Alibi: Appellant maintained that the trial court and the appellate court should have considered his alibi, having attempted to show that he was at barangay Ananong at the time of the rape incident.

• Competency of the Victim as Witness: Whether AAA, notwithstanding her mental retardation, was qualified to take the witness stand.
• Alibi: Whether appellant's alibi should have been considered.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Whether AAA's mental retardation could be considered a qualifying circumstance to raise the conviction to qualified rape.

• Competency of the Victim as Witness: Yes. Under Sections 20 and 21, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses; mental retardation per se does not affect a witness' credibility.
• Alibi: No. Alibi fails where it was not shown that it was impossible for appellant to be present at the crime scene, the distance between barangay Ananong and barangay Ogbong being only four kilometers and traversable in one hour or less.
• Qualifying Circumstance: No. Knowledge by the offender of the victim's mental disability must be specifically alleged in the Information and adequately proved by the prosecution; absent such allegation and proof, the offender may be convicted only of simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.

• Competency of the Victim as Witness: Sections 20 and 21, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court govern. Section 20 provides that all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses, except as provided in the next succeeding section. Section 21 disqualifies 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. AAA was found totally qualified to take the witness stand notwithstanding her mental condition. The trial court observed that AAA was able to recall what appellant did to her, recounting that while she was playing, appellant asked her to go with him because he would give her a sugar cane, brought her to his house, removed her panty, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Although she faltered in the sequence of events on cross-examination, this did not destroy her credibility, as even one with normal mental condition would not be able to recall past events with a hundred percent accuracy; AAA was certain that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and that a long time passed before the incident was reported to the police. The Court of Appeals, evaluating the records, likewise found AAA able to perceive, make known her perception to others, and remember traumatic incidents, and held that her testimony was replete with consistent details negating the probability of fabrication. Mental retardation per se does not affect a witness' credibility, and a mental retardate may be a credible witness.
• Alibi: For alibi to prosper, it must not only be shown that appellant was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime but that it was also impossible for him to be present at the crime scene. Appellant attempted to show that he was at barangay Ananong at the time of the rape incident, but the trial court found that the distance between barangay Ananong and barangay Ogbong is only four kilometers and could be traversed in one hour or even less. The physical impossibility requirement was therefore not satisfied, and the alibi defense failed.
• Qualifying Circumstance: The trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty of simple rape and properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court correctly ruled that AAA's mental disability could not be considered a qualifying circumstance because the Information failed to allege that appellant knew of such mental condition at the time of the commission of the crime. Following People vs. Limio, the fact that the offended party in a rape case is a mental retardate does not by itself call for the imposition of the death penalty unless knowledge by the offender of such mental disability is specifically alleged and adequately proved by the prosecution. Article 266-B(10) of the Revised Penal Code imposes the death penalty 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, and such knowledge qualifies rape as a heinous offense. Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure requires both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged with specificity in the Information. In the absence of a specific or particular allegation in the Information that appellant knew of AAA's mental disability or retardation, as well as adequate proof that appellant knew of this fact, Article 266-B(10) could not be properly applied. Appellant could only be convicted of simple rape as defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, for which the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. Appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346. The awards of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity are proper, while the award of exemplary damages must be increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

• Competency of a Mental Retardate as a Witness — Under Sections 20 and 21, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses, except 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. The Court applied this rule by upholding the trial court's and appellate court's findings that AAA, despite her mental condition, was able to perceive, make known her perception to others, and remember traumatic incidents, and was therefore totally qualified to take the witness stand.
• Mental Retardation per se Does Not Affect Credibility — Mental retardation per se does not affect a witness' credibility, and a mental retardate may be a credible witness. The Court relied on this principle in rejecting appellant's assertion that AAA's testimony deserved no credence because of her mental disability, noting that her account was replete with consistent details negating fabrication and that her faltering on the sequence of events on cross-examination did not destroy her credibility.
• Knowledge of Mental Disability as a Qualifying Circumstance — Article 266-B(10) of the Revised Penal Code imposes the death penalty when the crime of rape is committed with the qualifying circumstance that 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. By itself, the fact that the offended party is a mental retardate does not call for the imposition of the death penalty unless knowledge by the offender of such mental disability is specifically alleged in the Information and adequately proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that appellant could only be convicted of simple rape, the Information having failed to allege that he knew of AAA's mental disability.
• Requisites of Alibi — For alibi to prosper, it must not only be shown that the accused was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime but that it was also impossible for him to be present at the crime scene. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting appellant's alibi, the distance between barangay Ananong and barangay Ogbong being only four kilometers and traversable in one hour or even less.

• "For alibi to prosper, it must not only be shown that appellant was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime but that it was also impossible for him to be present at the crime scene." — States the settled two-pronged requisites of the defense of alibi, which the Court applied to reject appellant's claim that he was in barangay Ananong at the time of the rape.
• "We stress that, contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, mental retardation per se does not affect a witness' credibility. A mental retardate may be a credible witness." — Articulates the controlling rule on the credibility of mentally retarded witnesses, drawn from the Court of Appeals' evaluation and adopted by the Court in rejecting the challenge to AAA's testimony.
• "By itself, the fact that the offended party in a rape case is a mental retardate does not call for the imposition of the death penalty, unless knowledge by the offender of such mental disability is specifically alleged and adequately proved by the prosecution." — States the ratio decidendi on the qualifying circumstance of knowledge of mental disability, quoted from People vs. Limio and applied to reduce the conviction to simple rape.

• People vs. Limio, 473 Phil. 659 (2004) — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that the fact that the offended party in a rape case is a mental retardate does not by itself warrant the death penalty unless knowledge by the offender of such mental disability is specifically alleged and adequately proved by the prosecution; the Court adopted its reasoning in holding appellant liable only for simple rape.
• People vs. Vergara, G.R. No. 199226, January 25, 2014 — Cited as prevailing jurisprudence supporting the increase of the award of exemplary damages to P30,000.00.
• People vs. Teodoro, G.R. No. 175876, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 324 — Cited as authority for withholding the real names of the victim and the members of her immediate family pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 and Republic Act No. 9262.

• Section 20, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides that all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses, except as provided in the next succeeding section; applied to hold AAA qualified to testify notwithstanding her mental condition.
• Section 21, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Disqualifies as witnesses 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, and children whose mental maturity renders them incapable of perceiving the facts and relating them truthfully; the Court found AAA outside this disqualification.
• Article 266-B, par. 1, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua for simple rape; applied in affirming the penalty imposed on appellant.
• Article 266-B(10), Revised Penal Code — Imposes the death penalty when the rape is committed with the qualifying circumstance that 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; held inapplicable because the Information failed to allege such knowledge.
• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code — Defines the crime of rape; cited as the provision under which appellant was convicted of simple rape.
• Section 3, Republic Act No. 9346 — Provides that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, shall not be eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law; applied to declare appellant ineligible for parole.
• Rule 110, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged with specificity in the Information; applied to hold that the qualifying circumstance of knowledge of mental disability could not be considered absent a specific allegation.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur.