People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Aniceto Bulagao, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Aniceto Bulagao was charged with two counts of rape in separate Informations dated December 21, 2000. The charges alleged that on June 17, 2000, and June 29, 2000, in Bocaue, Bulacan, he used a knife, force, and intimidation to have carnal knowledge of AAA, a 14-year-old, against her will. He pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented AAA as its sole witness. She testified that on June 17, 2000, while sleeping with her younger sister, accused-appellant entered their room, poked a knife at her neck, undressed her, and raped her for about an hour. On June 29, 2000, while sleeping in her sister’s house, accused-appellant undressed her, held her hands, and raped her for half an hour. She reported the incidents to her mother and brother but was not believed and was whipped. During cross-examination, AAA affirmed that her adoptive father, CCC, had sexually abused her five times, starting when she was seven. The parties stipulated on the medico-legal report, which found AAA in a “non-virgin state.”
Over a year later, the defense presented AAA as its witness, wherein she recanted her prosecution testimony. She claimed the sexual encounters were consensual, that she fabricated the rape charge out of anger because accused-appellant made her do laundry, and that a police officer instructed her to say a knife was used. She stated she was recanting because she was no longer angry and was then living with accused-appellant’s family. However, on cross-examination, she answered in the negative when asked if she “consented and voluntarily submitted” to the accused-appellant.
The defense also presented a clinical psychologist who testified that accused-appellant, examined in September 2002, had an IQ below 50 and was suffering from mental retardation. Accused-appellant himself testified that AAA seduced him, they only kissed, and she accused him of rape after demanding ₱300.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted accused-appellant of two counts of rape and initially imposed the death penalty. The RTC gave credence to AAA’s original testimony, noting her recantation occurred after she was released from DSWD custody and returned to accused-appellant’s family, suggesting she recanted to remain in their good graces. The RTC also found the defense of mental retardation unsubstantiated for the time of the crimes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without parole for each count, in line with Republic Act No. 9346, and awarded moral damages.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for two counts of rape despite the recantation of the victim’s testimony and the defense of mental retardation.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the conviction was based on sufficient evidence and that the recantation was unreliable.
1. On the Recantation: The Court ruled that retractions are viewed with disfavor and are inherently unreliable. They are easy to make but difficult to disprove. The original testimony given in open court carries more weight. The Court found AAA’s recantation dubious, as it was given after she had been released from DSWD custody and was living with accused-appellant’s family, creating a strong possibility that it was coerced or made under undue influence. Her claim of consent was further undermined by her negative answer when directly asked on cross-examination if she voluntarily submitted. The original testimony was clear, credible, and consistent on the essential elements of rape.
2. On the Defense of Mental Retardation: The Court upheld the lower courts’ finding that this defense failed. The psychological examination was conducted more than two years after the rapes, with no evidence proving accused-appellant had the same condition at the time of the crimes. Furthermore, the psychologist testified that accused-appellant had the capacity to discern right from wrong, which is the crucial test for exempting circumstance under the Revised Penal Code.
3. On the Credibility of AAA’s Testimony: The Court found no reason to deviate from the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility. Her testimony on the details of the rape-the use of a knife, the force and intimidation, and her resistance-was straightforward and credible. The fact that she was previously abused by her adoptive father did not impair her credibility regarding the rapes committed by accused-appellant. The medico-legal finding of a “non-virgin state” was consistent with her testimony.
The Supreme Court thus sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape and the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages.
