G.R. No. 127495; December 22, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NOLITO BORAS Y DOE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On December 13, 1991, six-year-old Melanie Medalla was playing alone downstairs while her parents slept. Accused-appellant Nolito Boras, a neighbor, invited her to accompany him. Trusting him, she agreed. He led her to a guava tree about 15 meters away, told her they would have sex (“magkitoan”), and instructed her to remove her panty. He then placed her on top of and between his legs and inserted his penis into her vagina. The act was interrupted when the victim’s uncle, Cirilo Guirela, arrived, prompting the girl to run away. The incident was reported, leading to a medical examination which confirmed hymenal laceration and other injuries consistent with sexual assault.
During trial, the defense attempted to establish the accused’s insanity. Counsel moved for a psychiatric examination after noting the accused’s strange behavior in court, where he claimed not to know his own name or circumstances. The trial court observed the accused appeared normal but feigning insanity. A subsequent psychiatric evaluation from the Bicol Regional Hospital confirmed he was coherent, free from psychosis, and understood the charges against him, attributing his courtroom behavior to anxiety.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for statutory rape. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the accused’s mental fitness, finding no arbitrariness in its rejection of the insanity defense, which was substantiated by the official psychiatric report. On the merits, the crime of statutory rape under the then Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is consummated by carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age, irrespective of her consent or the use of force. The victim’s age of six was sufficiently proven by her Certificate of Live Birth, a public document enjoying the presumption of authenticity, which the defense failed to rebut with clear and convincing evidence.
The credible and categorical testimony of the child victim, corroborated by medical findings, established the fact of sexual intercourse. The defense of denial cannot prevail over this positive identification. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed as the crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, which prescribed the death penalty for rape of a child below seven. The Court modified the damages, awarding P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, the latter due to the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, as the accused exploited the victim’s familiarity with him as a neighbor.