G.R. No. 247750 . May 05, 2021.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MAXIMO DINOY YBAÑEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Maximo Dinoy Ybañez, a quack doctor, was charged with three counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 (Criminal Case Nos. S-4290, S-4291, S-4292) and one count of Child Abuse under Section 10(a) of RA 7610 (Criminal Case No. S-4225). The private complainant, AAA, was a 16-year-old minor with a mental disability (epilepsy). The prosecution alleged that on May 2, 4, and 6, 2009, accused-appellant, under the guise of treating AAA’s epilepsy, brought her to a room or comfort room, removed her clothing and his own, and had sexual intercourse with her, claiming it was part of the cure. On May 14, 2009, he was also accused of hugging and kissing her against her will. AAA’s mother learned of the incidents on May 13, 2009, after AAA confessed. A medico-legal examination confirmed AAA’s hymen was no longer intact. The defense denied the accusations, claiming they were fabricated, and asserted that accused-appellant only treated AAA using herbal plants.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted accused-appellant in Criminal Case Nos. S-4292 and S-4225 but convicted him of two counts of Rape in Criminal Case Nos. S-4290 and S-4291. The RTC found AAA’s testimony credible, noted accused-appellant took advantage of her mental condition through fraudulent machination, and appreciated the qualifying circumstance that the offender knew of the victim’s mental disability. It considered accused-appellant’s old age (87 at the time) as a mitigating circumstance and imposed reclusion perpetua for each count, plus damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but reduced the damages. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant for the crime of Rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction of accused-appellant for two counts of Qualified Rape, with modifications to the penalty and damages. The Court held that all elements of Rape under Article 266-A(1) of the RPC were proven: (1) accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA; (2) it was done through fraudulent machination (by pretending the sexual act was medical treatment); and (3) it was against AAA’s will. The Court found AAA’s testimony straightforward and credible, and her mental disability made her more susceptible to deception. The Court corrected the designation of the offense, deleting the correlation to RA 7610, as the acts were properly punishable under Article 266-A and B of the RPC alone. The circumstance that accused-appellant knew of AAA’s mental disability at the time of the crime qualified the rape under Article 266-B(10) of the RPC, making it Qualified Rape punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. While the RTC and CA considered accused-appellant’s age as mitigating, the Supreme Court clarified that for Qualified Rape, which prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua to death), the presence of a mitigating circumstance (old age) with no aggravating circumstance warrants the imposition of the lesser penalty, reclusion perpetua. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 and A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court increased the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each for every count of rape, with interest at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.