Case Digest (G.R. No. 189822)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Brion, Jojie Suansing, G.R. No. 189822, September 02, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.The criminal action arose from an Amended Information charging Jojie Suansing (appellant) with rape of AAA (the victim) in the first week of April 2001 at his boarding house in Davao City; the Amended Information alleged that the rape was attended by the qualifying circumstance that the victim has a mental disability and that the accused knew of such mental disability. Appellant pleaded not guilty and went to trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Davao City, in Criminal Case No. 49,196-2002.
The prosecution presented the victim AAA, her aunt and guardian EEE, friend FFF, Dr. Mary Grace Solano (gynecologist), Dr. Sally Jane Kwong-Garcia (psychiatrist), and psychologist Evangeline Castro. The RTC evaluated and allowed AAA to testify despite her mental retardation and permitted leading questions by both parties. FFF testified she left AAA behind at appellant’s boarding house and later saw AAA coming out fixing her short pants; AAA told FFF appellant had pulled her into the room, removed her clothing, and inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent. AAA later told EEE, who reported the incident to police. Medical examination (August 6, 2001) showed old hymenal lacerations; psychiatric and psychological evaluations produced an IQ of 53 and a mental age of about 9–12 years, diagnosing mild mental retardation.
Appellant denied the charge, claiming familiarity with AAA and her relatives, asserting he treated AAA as a niece and that his sister had sent them to fetch appliances; he contended the relatives sued him because his sister ceased financial support. He did not contest AAA’s mental retardation at trial.
The RTC, in an April 14, 2004 decision, found appellant guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt but declined to treat the victim’s mental retardation as a qualifying circumstance for death penalty because the trial court considered the Amended Information insufficiently specific; it convicted appellant of simple rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered indemnity of P50,000. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a July 17, 2009 decision (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00439-MIN), affirmed the RTC’s factual findings regarding the victim’s credibility and mental retardation, declined to treat the case as qualified rape for purposes of the death penalty ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the testimony of AAA, a person with mental retardation, competent and credible to sustain a conviction?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of rape — carnal knowledge and the victim’s mental retardation — notwithstanding the absence of fresh hymenal lacerations?
- Was the appellant’s knowledge of the victim’s mental disability properly alleged in the Amended Information so as to qualify the offense under Article 266-B(10) and, if so, what penalty ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)