Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Obogne
Case
G.R. No. 199740
Decision Date
Mar 24, 2014
Jerry Obogne convicted of raping a 12-year-old mentally retarded girl; Supreme Court upheld reclusion perpetua, citing credible testimony, rejected alibi, and adjusted damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199740)

Summary of Charges and Court Rulings

Jerry Obogne entered a plea of not guilty during the arraignment on December 17, 2004. On March 13, 2008, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim. The RTC did not regard the victim's mental disability as a qualifying circumstance since the information did not allege that the appellant was aware of her condition.

Appeal and Appellate Court's Decision

Subsequently, Obogne appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC’s ruling with modifications on March 28, 2011. It confirmed his guilt for simple rape but increased the civil indemnity amount. The appellate court upheld aAAAa’s capability to testify, despite her mental condition, emphasizing that her testimony was clear and competent; she recounted the incident with consistent details and demonstrated her ability to remember traumatic events.

Testimonial Credibility and Mental Capacity

The court highlighted that mental retardation does not automatically disqualify a witness from being credible. Both courts found aAAAa capable of providing sufficient testimony regarding the incident. Although she displayed some inconsistencies during cross-examination, the courts determined that her overall testimony maintained the ring of truth and reflected her sincere account of the events.

Alibi Defense Rejection

The appellant’s defense of alibi was dismissed as the evidence presented did not establish his physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. The court noted that the distance between barangay Ananong, where Obogne claimed to be, and barangay Ogbong was not insurmountable, making it plausible for him to have committed the crime.

Legal Principles and Sentencing

The courts affirmed Obogne’s conviction for simple rape, as the prosecution failed to demonstrate that he was aware of the victim's mental disability at the time of the offense, which is necessary to qualify for a harsher penalty under the Revised Penal Code. This ruling aligns with previous precedents establishing that mere knowledge of the victim’s mental incompetence must be specifically alleged and proved to elevate the crime's classification.

Damages and Financial Penalties

The ruling confirmed the appropriateness of the civil indemnity and moral damages awarded. However, the appel

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.