GR 250332; (November, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 250332 . November 23, 2021.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO TORENO, JR. Y FLORES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Rogelio Toreno, Jr. y Flores was charged with two counts of Statutory Rape against minors AAA (5 years old) and BBB (7 years old) in December 2011 in XXX City, Negros Occidental. He pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution presented the victims’ testimonies. BBB testified that Rogelio undressed her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and emitted a whitish fluid, causing her pain. AAA testified that Rogelio ordered her to get grey hairs from his head, then undressed and penetrated her, also causing pain. Both victims did not immediately report the incidents due to fear. The defense presented Rogelio, who denied the allegations and claimed he lived separately and supported the children financially; his mother DDD, who corroborated his living arrangements; and Dr. Ma. Jocelyn Gauzon-Gayares, who testified that Rogelio had an intellectual disability with a mental age of eight but was fit to stand trial. The Regional Trial Court found Rogelio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Statutory Rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, with damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Rogelio Toreno, Jr. y Flores for two counts of Statutory Rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of Statutory Rape were proven: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) the victim was below 12 years old. The victims’ candid and consistent testimonies, given in a straightforward manner, were sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which gave full credence to the victims’ accounts. The defense of denial and alibi was unavailing, as it was not physically impossible for Rogelio to be at the crime scene. The claim of intellectual disability did not negate criminal liability, as the expert witness found him capable of standing trial, and the trial court observed his ability to answer questions intelligently during proceedings. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were affirmed in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.