Case Digest (G.R. No. 179477)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Tabio, G.R. No. 179477, February 06, 2008, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Appellant Jimmy Tabio was charged in a single Information with three counts of rape for acts allegedly committed between June 13 and June 28, 2002, against AAA, a woman described in the record as mentally retarded. The Information alleged that the offenses were committed by means of force and intimidation while the victim was alone inside her house at night.At arraignment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora (Branch 96, presided by Judge Corazon Soluren), appellant pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. AAA testified that on one night in June 2002 appellant entered her house, pressed a knife to her breast, removed her clothing, mounted her, inserted his penis into her vagina and ejaculated; she identified him by the light of a gas lamp. She further testified that appellant entered her house on two succeeding occasions and repeated the same acts. A physician (Dr. Roman Balangue) and relatives testified regarding AAA’s mental condition; the doctor assessed her mental age at about six years although she was 23 years old.
Appellant denied the charges and offered an alibi that he was in the mountain gathering wood at the relevant times; his wife and brother‑in‑law testified in support. On November 25, 2003 the RTC convicted appellant of three counts of qualified rape and imposed the death penalty for each count, ordering P75,000 civil indemnity and P50,000 moral damages. The case was forwarded on automatic review to the Supreme Court. On June 7, 2005 the Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals pursuant to People v. Efren Mateo.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated January 23, 2007 ( penned by Associate Justice Jose Sabio, Jr., with Associate Justices Jose Reyes, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal concurring), affirmed with modification: it found appellant guilty of three counts of simple rape (not qualified rape), reduced civil indemnity to P50,000 and added exemplary damages of P25,000. The case returned to the Supreme Court for final disposition...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC err in convicting appellant of qualified rape and imposing the death penalty when the Information did not specifically allege the qualifying circumstance (knowledge of the victim’s mental disability)?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt appellant’s guilt for all three charged rapes?
- Was the civil indemnity and other damages awarded appropria...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)