GR 188901; (December, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188901; December 15, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Gilbert Castro, was charged with two counts of rape against AAA, his second cousin and neighbor. AAA was an 18-year-old woman diagnosed with a moderate level of mental retardation, possessing the mental capacity of a 5-year-old child. The prosecution alleged that Castro raped AAA on February 5, 2002, and again on November 27, 2002, under a mango tree near their residences. The second incident was witnessed by their uncle, BBB, who saw the couple naked and in the act of sexual intercourse, causing Castro to flee. AAA positively identified Castro as her assailant. The defense consisted of denial and alibi, claiming he was at a wake during the first alleged incident and harvesting rice during the second.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of qualified rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for the second count of rape (Criminal Case No. 772-M-2003) but acquitted for the first count due to insufficient evidence. The Court upheld the credibility of AAA’s testimony, emphasizing that the testimony of a mentally retarded victim, when credible, is given full weight. Her mental disability made her incapable of fabricating a coherent story of sexual abuse, and her straightforward narration, corroborated by the eyewitness account of BBB who caught them in flagrante delicto, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish the elements of rape.
The Court rejected the defense of alibi as weak and inherently unreliable, especially since Castro failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. His proximity as a neighbor negated this defense. The qualifying circumstance of the victim’s mental disability, which was known to the accused, was duly proven through a psychological report and transformed the crime into qualified rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was correctly imposed. The Court modified the awarded damages, increasing the exemplary damages to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence to serve as a deterrent.