G.R. No. 167755 November 28, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NESTOR VELUZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information dated December 13, 1999, charged Nestor Veluz (appellant) with the rape of AAA, a thirteen-year-old with a mental age of four to five years, on or about October 23, 1999. The prosecution presented eight witnesses. AAA testified she was called by appellant’s daughter, Kathleen, to their house where appellant raped her. Prosecution witness Corazon Rivera testified that on October 23, 1999, at around 10 a.m., she peeped through the window of appellant’s house and saw appellant, naked, on top of AAA, who had her blouse rolled up, making pumping motions on a bamboo platform. Rivera called AAA’s aunt, BBB. BBB went to the house, saw appellant and AAA lying naked, and later found AAA outside, perspiring. AAA told BBB, “Iniyot ng matagal,” and indicated with four fingers how many times it happened. Barangay Kagawad Loreto Cuaresma also spoke with AAA, who similarly stated, “Iniyot nak,” and raised four fingers, identifying appellant. AAA was medically examined by Dr. Rodolfo Eligio, who found old, incomplete hymenal lacerations, consistent with sexual intercourse one to two weeks prior, but noted the absence of seminal fluid did not rule out intercourse on the day of examination. Clinical psychologist Nimia C. de Guzman assessed AAA’s mental age as four to five years. The defense presented appellant and his daughter Kathleen, who denied the allegations, claiming appellant was elsewhere assisting with a funeral and that AAA entered the house uninvited. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) and sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed rape.
2. Whether the qualifying circumstance of the victim’s mental disability was proven in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
3. Whether the award of civil indemnity was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The Court held that the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of AAA, corroborated by eyewitness Rivera and the immediate disclosures to BBB and Cuaresma, were credible and consistent. The medical findings, while indicating old lacerations, did not disprove recent intercourse, especially given the victim’s mental condition which made precise dating difficult. The Court found the defense of alibi weak and unsubstantiated. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that the qualifying circumstance of mental disability under Article 266-B(10) was sufficiently proven through the uncontroverted Psychological Report of clinical psychologist De Guzman, which established AAA’s mental age was four to five years, and through the observations of witnesses regarding her demeanor. However, due to the passage of Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the death penalty, the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. On the third issue, the Court affirmed the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, adjusting the amounts in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Appellant was ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.