G.R. No. 126044 -45 July 2, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. NONOY DIZON y MITANO, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Nonoy Dizon y Mitano was charged with, tried for, and convicted of two counts of rape committed separately on two Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) foundlings, Glenda Celis and Merlyn Henares. The trial court sentenced him to two reclusion perpetuas and ordered him to indemnify the victims. Appellant appealed, contending innocence and imputing error to the trial court’s ruling that the complainants positively identified him as their rapist.
Glenda Celis, a 15-year-old DSWD ward, testified that on the evening of May 27, 1994, appellant, who was temporarily residing at the DSWD, went on top of her while she was sleeping, tied her hands, gagged her with a blanket, undressed her, mashed her breasts, inserted his finger and then his penis into her vagina, causing her pain and bleeding. He threatened her with a knife not to tell anyone. She later woke up Merlyn Henares, who was sleeping beside her, and told her about the incident.
Merlyn Henares, a 10-year-old DSWD ward, testified that on the evening of May 28, 1994, appellant bodily carried her from a wooden bench to the cemented floor, tied her hands, gagged her, stripped her clothes, went on top of her, and raped her. He warned her not to tell. She recognized him as “Kuya Nonoy” because he was bald and she even touched his head after being untied.
The incidents were reported after a mute ward overheard the victims talking and reported via sign language to DSWD officers. Medical examinations by Dr. Edgardo Gueco confirmed both victims had ruptured hymens with deep, newly healed lacerations consistent with recent sexual intercourse, and Merlyn had an abrasion near her umbilical region indicative of struggle. Psychological assessments by Dr. Maria Lourdes Reyes and Maria Suerte Cabiguin revealed Glenda had a mental age of 5 years and 7 months (moderate mental retardation), and Merlyn had a mental age of 5 years and 10.5 months (mental retardation).

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of two counts of rape based on the positive identification by the victims and the evidence presented.

RULING

The conviction is affirmed. The prosecution established the crimes of rape beyond reasonable doubt under multiple circumstances defined in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended at the time of the crimes). First, both victims were mentally deficient, with mental ages below twelve years, making carnal knowledge with them constitute rape under the third circumstance (when the woman is demented). Second, Merlyn was chronologically below twelve years old, rendering the issue of consent irrelevant (statutory rape). Third, even assuming both complainants were of proper mental state, the prosecution proved the use of force and intimidation. Glenda was tied, gagged, and threatened with a knife. Merlyn was forcibly carried, tied, and gagged. The victims’ testimonies were credible and consistent, corroborated by medical and psychological evidence. Appellant’s defense of denial could not overcome the positive identification and detailed accounts of the victims. The penalties and awards of indemnity were proper.