G.R. No. 225604. July 23, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DIONESIO ROY y PERALTA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Dionesio Roy y Peralta, was charged with the statutory rape of AAA, a nine-year-old minor, on June 30, 2010, in Manila. The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that the appellant dragged her into an opening in a wall in Intramuros, removed her clothes, covered her mouth, and made her sit on his lap. She stated he “dipped” his penis into her vagina. Her account was corroborated by eyewitness Roger Bartulay, who saw the appellant naked with a naked child on his lap, and by the medical findings of Dr. Merle Tan, which indicated blunt force or penetrating trauma. AAA’s mother, BBB, confirmed her daughter’s age through a birth certificate.
The defense presented the appellant, who gave inconsistent statements, initially claiming alibi. Subsequently, the trial court ordered a psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Grace Domingo testified that the appellant was suffering from “imbecility” or moderate mental retardation. However, on cross-examination, she clarified that this diagnosis pertained to his condition at the time of the evaluation and not necessarily at the time of the offense, stating she could not conclusively determine his awareness of his actions during the incident.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for statutory rape, notwithstanding his claim of mental retardation.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the prosecution successfully proved the elements of statutory rape: (1) AAA was under twelve years of age, and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of her. The testimony of the child-victim, given in a categorical, straightforward, and consistent manner, was accorded full credence. It was corroborated by an eyewitness and medical evidence, leaving no reasonable doubt as to the appellant’s guilt.
Regarding the defense of mental incapacity, the Court ruled it was unavailing. The burden of proof to establish the exempting circumstance of imbecility lies with the defense. Dr. Domingo’s testimony was equivocal; she could not affirm that the appellant was incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of his acts at the precise time of the crime. She admitted her evaluation reflected his mental status only at the time of examination, not retrospectively. Consequently, the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the appellant had no control over his mental faculties during the commission of the rape. The law presumes every person to be of sound mind, and this presumption was not overturned. Thus, the appellant was correctly held criminally liable. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing exemplary damages to ₱75,000.00 and imposing interest on all monetary awards.