✅
People vs. Baay, G.R. No.
220143, June 7, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JONATHAN BAAY y
FALCO, accused-appellant
G.R. No. 220143
June 7, 2017
DOCTRINE
Rape of a mental retardate falls under paragraph 1 (b), not Section 1 (d), of Article
266-A as the same, precisely, refers to a rape of a female "deprived of reason."
FACTS
AAA testified that she was drying palay when the accused-appellant invited
her to go to the forest. Then, the accused-appellant pulled down her shorts
and underwear, then inserted his penis in her vagina, and started a pumping
motion. It lasted quite long, after which, a white liquid came out of the penis of
the accused-appellant. Thereafter, she went home. After the incident, AAA got
pregnant.
On cross-examination, she testified that she practiced and was coached by
her mother on what she had to say in court and to point to the accused-
appellant as the one who had sex with her but in fact, the accused-appellant
did not have sex with her.
The trial court, however, noted that as AAA's examination continued, AAA
made conflicting answers to the query as to whether or not the accused-
appellant had sex with her, which prompted the court to reset the hearing to
People vs. Baay, G.R. No. 220143, June 7, 2017 1
give the witness time to rest. The defense objected to the resetting, arguing
that it would allow the prosecution to coach AAA.
BBB testified that she came to know that her daughter was pregnant when she
brought her for a medical check-up and AAA told her about the rape incident
in the forest. BBB also brought AAA to get an assessment of AAA's
mental/psychological status and then to the police to file the complaint. AAA
delivered a baby.
Accused-appellant denied the allegations against him. He testified that AAA's
house is about 500 meters away from their house and that he knew that AAA
is mentally retarded. He averred that he could not have raped AAA because he
was working on a farm which is about one kilometer away from the forested
area where the alleged crime took place. He stayed in a hut beside the said
farm and bought his needs at a store near the place. He further averred that
AAA's family accused him of rape because of the trees he planted beside the
pigpen owned by AAA's family.
ISSUE
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of Statutory Rape.
HELD
NO, the accused-appellant is guilty of Statutory Rape.
For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender
had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through
force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.
The fact of AAA's mental retardation is undisputed. Even the accused-appellant
admitted that he knew of AAA's mental condition. Essentially, thus, the appeal
boils down to the credibility of AAA's testimony as to the fact of sexual congress
between the accused-appellant and AAA.
Given the victim's mental condition, being a 22-year-old woman with a mental age
of 4-5 years old, we find it highly improbable that she had simply concocted or
fabricated the rape charge against the accused-appellant. We neither find it likely
People vs. Baay, G.R. No. 220143, June 7, 2017 2
that she was merely coached into testifying against the accused-appellant,
precisely, considering her limited intellect. In her mental state, only a very startling
event would leave a lasting impression on her so that she would be able to recall it
later when asked.
We, however, find it erroneous for the RTC and the CA to convict the accused-
appellant of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape under the
said provision is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. To convict
an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: first, the
age of the victim; second, the identity of the accused; and last but not least, the
carnal knowledge between the accused and the victim.
In this case, it is not disputed that AAA was already 22 years old when she was
raped albeit she has a mental age of 4-5 years old.
It should, however, no longer be debatable that rape of a mental retardate falls
under paragraph 1 (b), not Section 1 (d), of the said provision as the same,
precisely, refers to a rape of a female "deprived of reason."
Considering the circumstances of this case, we find that accused-appellant
should be held liable for simple rape.
At any rate, we sustain the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC and
the CA. Indeed, Article 266-B concerning Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, provides that simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua.
The penalty is increased to death only when the qualifying circumstance of
knowledge by the accused of the mental disability of the victim, among others, is
alleged in the information. In this case, while it was proven and admitted during
trial that the accused-appellant knew of AAA's mental retardation, the same was
not alleged in the Information, hence, it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance.
FALLO
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. Accused Jonathan Baay is found GUILTY of
the crime of simple rape as defined and punished under Article 266-A,
paragraph 1(b) concerning Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code and is thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
People vs. Baay, G.R. No. 220143, June 7, 2017 3
the offended party AAA the sum of PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
PhP75,000.00 as moral damages and PhP75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The
civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum from the finality
of this decision until fully paid.
People vs. Baay, G.R. No. 220143, June 7, 2017 4
