People v. Dizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Nonoy Dizon, was charged with and convicted of two counts of rape committed against two DSWD foundlings. The first victim, Glenda Celis, a 15-year-old, testified that the appellant entered her room at night, undressed her, mashed her breast, inserted his finger and then his penis into her vagina, all while she was being threatened with a knife and gagged. She noticed bloodstains on her panty afterward. The second victim, Merlyn Henares, a 10-year-old, testified that the appellant carried her from her sleeping place, tied and gagged her, stripped her clothes, and then raped her, warning her not to tell their caretakers. A third ward, Sheryl, who is mute, overheard the victims and reported the incident to an officer via sign language. Procedural History: The trial court convicted the appellant of two counts of rape, sentencing him to two reclusion perpetuas and ordering him to indemnify the victims. The appellant appealed the decision, asserting his innocence and questioning the positive identification by the complainants. The Petition: The appellant contended that he is innocent of the charges and that the trial court erred in ruling that the complainants positively identified him as their rapist.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty of two counts of rape and whether the complainants were positively identified as the perpetrator. Whether the mental age and chronological age of the victims are relevant in determining statutory rape. Whether the use of force and intimidation was sufficiently proven. Whether the penalty imposed is proper. Whether the award of damages is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the appellant guilty of two counts of rape. The Court modified the award of damages, ordering the appellant to pay each victim P50,000.00 as moral damages in addition to the P50,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the appellant and positive identification: The Court held that the testimonies of the victims, despite their tender age and intellectual capacity, were credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction. The first victim identified the appellant by asking "Bakit, Kuya Nonoy" and later saw him running away. The second victim identified the appellant by touching his bald head, noting he was the only bald male in the DSWD area. The Court emphasized that the trial court, having observed the witnesses' demeanor, gave credence to their testimonies, which were found to be plausible and sincere, even under thorough cross-examination. The appellant's defense of denial and alibi was deemed weak and unsubstantiated, especially when contrasted with the positive and credible testimonies of the victims. On the relevance of mental age and chronological age: The Court reiterated that under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed when the victim is under twelve years of age or is demented. It further clarified that if a woman above twelve years has a mental age below twelve, she is also considered a victim of statutory rape, even if she voluntarily submitted or if force or intimidation was absent. The Court cited jurisprudence establishing that the consent or lack thereof of a child under 12 years is irrelevant in statutory rape. Both victims, due to their chronological age (Merlyn) and mental age (Glenda and Merlyn), fell under the purview of statutory rape. On the use of force and intimidation: The Court found that the appellant employed force and intimidation. For the first victim, he bound her hands, gagged her, and threatened her with a knife. For the second victim, abrasions were found on her umbilical region, indicative of struggle, and she was also tied, gagged, and punched until she lost consciousness. The Court noted that the presence of a knife was sufficient to instill fear and bring the victims into submission, and that force need not be irresistible, only sufficient to consummate the act. The victims' tender age, lack of education, and fear for their safety contributed to their submission. On the penalty: The Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, citing Article 335 of the RPC as amended by R.A. 7659, which prescribes this penalty when rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon. The appellant used a knife, a deadly weapon. On the damages: The Court modified the award of damages, granting P50,000.00 each for moral damages in addition to the P50,000.00 civil indemnity, recognizing that moral damages are inherent in the crime of rape and are recoverable without need for proof of mental and physical suffering, especially for victims within a certain age range.
Main Doctrine
The carnal knowledge of a woman whose mental age is that of a child below twelve years constitutes rape, even if she voluntarily submitted or if circumstances of force or intimidation are absent. Furthermore, the consent or lack thereof of a child under 12 years of age is irrelevant in statutory rape. The use of a deadly weapon in the commission of rape warrants the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.