G.R. No. 270580 , July 29, 2024
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Jose Roel Bragais y Sison and Alfredo Tacuyo y Evangelista, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Jose Roel Bragais and Alfredo Tacuyo, caretakers of La Loma Cemetery, were charged with the murder of 12-year-old Paula Apilado y Viray. The Information alleged that on July 14, 2011, they conspired to attack, assault, and stab Paula, inflicting mortal wounds. Both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s key eyewitness was Mambo Dela Cruz Delima, a person with an intellectual disability described as having a mental age of five or six years. A Psychiatric Report from the National Center for Mental Health stated he had “moderate mental retardation” but was competent to testify. Mambo testified that while lighting a candle at his grandmother’s grave in La Loma Cemetery, he saw Bragais (“Roel”) and Tacuyo (“Totoy”) force Paula down, tape her mouth, remove her clothing, stab her repeatedly, and insert a broken bottle into her vagina. He stated Bragais held Paula’s feet while Tacuyo stabbed her, and they later dragged her body. Mambo’s attention was drawn when he exclaimed, prompting Tacuyo to brandish a knife and threaten him. Paula’s body was discovered the next day in a mausoleum. Dr. Robert Rey Sandiego’s autopsy revealed Paula had 17 stab wounds (nine fatal), a hematoma on her left eye, and contused abrasions consistent with a struggle and attempted rape. The defense presented only Bragais, who denied the charges, claimed alibi (being at his house and a friend’s house at the time), and stated he did not know the victim or Mambo. He admitted his house was within walking distance of the crime scene. The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of murder, which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications to the damages awarded.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the testimony of Mambo, a witness with an intellectual disability, is credible and admissible to sustain the conviction of Bragais and Tacuyo for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that a person with an intellectual disability is not disqualified from testifying solely due to their condition. Intellectual disability per se does not affect credibility; such a person may be a credible witness. The admissibility depends on the quality of their perceptions and their ability to communicate them to the court. The Court found Mambo’s testimony coherent, credible, and consistent with the physical evidence (the autopsy report). His positive identification of the appellants was clear and unwavering. The Court rejected Bragais’s denial and alibi as weak defenses, especially since he admitted proximity to the crime scene. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven, as the attack on the young victim was sudden and rendered her unable to defend herself. The Court modified the awarded damages, imposing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of PHP 100,000.00 each, and temperate damages of PHP 50,000.00, all with 6% interest per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid. The Court also adopted disability-inclusive language, using “person with intellectual disability” instead of outdated terms.