G.R. No. 177295 ; January 6, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARLON BARSAGA ABELLA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Marlon Barsaga Abella was charged with rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The information alleged that in December 1999, in Barangay San Vicente, Pamplona, Camarines Sur, the accused, armed with a balisong and under the influence of liquor, by means of force and intimidation, entered the house of the complainant AAA, a woman of feeble mind, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. The accused pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented AAA, her mother BBB, Dr. Emelito Alegre (radiologist), Dr. Imelda Escuadra (psychiatrist), and Corazon Alipante (psychologist). Evidence included an ultrasound report confirming AAA’s pregnancy, medical certificates, a psychiatric evaluation, and a certificate of live birth for AAA’s daughter. The psychiatric evaluation revealed that AAA, 38 years old and suffering from dwarfism (3 feet 8 inches tall), had a mental age of 78 years old and an IQ of 51, classified as moderate mental retardation.
AAA testified that the accused, whom she knew from their neighborhood, entered her house alone in the afternoon, pulled down her shorts, covered her mouth, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina while holding a knife. She felt pain but did not shout due to fear. She later discovered she was pregnant and eventually gave birth to a baby girl. BBB testified that she noticed AAA’s growing stomach, consulted a doctor, and learned of the pregnancy. AAA identified the accused as the perpetrator. BBB also stated that the accused’s parents offered a settlement of ₱20,000, which was declined.
The defense presented the accused and his father, Danilo Abella, relying on denial and alibi. They claimed the case was motivated by family animosity and suggested that a certain “Mang Ben” was responsible for AAA’s pregnancy. They presented barangay blotters to support their claim of prior disputes.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the accused of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to acknowledge and support his child, and pay ₱75,000 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000 as moral damages, and ₱50,000 as exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but deleted the exemplary damages for lack of basis. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider the alleged motive behind the filing of the case.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused despite the alleged lack of certainty in proving his participation in the crime.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modifications. The Court held that the defenses of denial and alibi could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification of the accused as her assailant. AAA’s testimony was found credible, candid, and consistent despite her mental retardation. The Court noted that her mental disability did not impair her ability to recount the traumatic experience, and her testimony was corroborated by medical and psychiatric evidence. The claim that AAA was coached due to family hostility was dismissed, as her testimony contained details only she could provide.
The Court also upheld the finding that the accused fathered AAA’s child, given the lack of evidence to support the claim that another man was responsible. The aggravating circumstances of the victim’s mental disability and the crime being committed in her dwelling were considered, warranting exemplary damages.
The Supreme Court modified the damages awarded: civil indemnity of ₱75,000, moral damages of ₱75,000, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000, all with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the decision until fully paid. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.