G.R. No. 190341 ; March 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ROMY FALLONES y LABANA, Appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Romy Fallones y Labana, was charged with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The complainant, Alice (a pseudonym), was an 18-year-old with moderate mental retardation, having a mental age of a five-year-old. She died during the trial and thus could not testify. The prosecution presented witnesses, including Alice’s sister, Amalia (a pseudonym). Amalia testified that on June 29, 2004, while searching for Alice, she approached Fallones’ house upon hearing Alice’s voice from inside crying, “Tama na, tama na!” After persistent knocking, Fallones opened the door, revealing Alice standing behind him with blood-stained and wet shorts. Alice, crying, immediately told Amalia that Fallones had given her a sanitary napkin. While going home, Alice recounted to Amalia that Fallones brought her to his bathroom, pulled down her shorts, and ravished her, wetting her shorts to make it appear she had tripped and was menstruating. They reported the incident to an uncle and their father. Barangay officials later intervened where Fallones was accosted. A psychologist confirmed Alice was sexually abused, suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, and was moderately mentally retarded but could not be easily manipulated or taught to fabricate events. The medico-legal findings supported sexual abuse. The RTC found Fallones guilty of simple rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity and damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision. Fallones appealed, arguing the testimony was hearsay and disputing the rape claim.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that accused Fallones raped Alice, a mental retardate.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the CA decision. The Court held that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although Alice’s direct statements to Amalia about the rape details could be considered hearsay, Amalia’s personal observations of the concomitant and subsequent circumstances were admissible as they were based on her personal knowledge. Crucially, Alice’s utterances (“Tama na, tama na!” and “Amalia, may napkin na binigay si Romy o.”) were admissible as part of the res gestae (excited utterances). The requirements for res gestae were met: 1) the rape was a startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made immediately during and after the event without time to contrive; and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence and its immediately attending circumstances. The spontaneity guaranteed trustworthiness. The psychologist’s report and medico-legal findings corroborated the sexual abuse. The defense of bare denial and alleged family pressure was unsubstantiated and no ill-motive was shown. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility was upheld. Thus, the conviction stands.