The Supreme Court (SC) showed no compassion for a man who sexually abused a mentally retarded or intellectually disabled minor in 2013 as it imposed a higher penalty on him.
Considering that the convicted felon knew that the girl was suffering from some form of mental retardation and such “did not deter him from pursuing his bestial desires, the law thus imposes upon him a higher penalty for his uncompromising carnal motivations,” the SC stressed.
Instead of only reclusion perpetua (jail term ranging from 20 to 40 years), since death penalty had been deleted from the penal statutes, and damages and civil indemnity, the SC ruled that Edilberto M. Manuel Jr. should be jailed “without eligibility for parole.”
The SC decision which was made public last Oct. 4 was written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo. It affirmed with modification the rulings handed down by the trial court in 2017 as affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2018.
(The names of the victim, her relatives and other persons who testified in the case, and the place where the crime happened were redacted in the SC decision.)
The victim was 15 years old when she was abused by Edilberto in 2013. But even before the rape was committed, court records showed that Edilberto had been touching the private parts of the victim who is the daughter of his live-in partner.
Due to her intellectual disability, she was assistance by a physician in narrating her ordeal during the court trial.
As summarized in its 2018 decision, the CA said: “When the victim was six years old, she was found to have a global pattern of developmental delay and had a developmental age of 3 to 3 .5 years old. At 9 years old, she was diagnosed to have mental retardation with a developmental age of a 5-year-old. On her follow-up visit at the age of 16 years old, she was diagnosed to have a developmental age of 5 to 5 .5 years old.”
The CA also said: The victim “further testified that she lived in the same house with accused-appellant (Edilberto) for quite some time; and that the latter repeatedly touched her private part. As accused-appellant threatened her, she did not report the incident to anyone. She was only 15 years old at the time of the incident.”
On the day the rape was committed, the victim’s mother inquired why Edilberto entered the room and locked the door. The victim described to her mother what Edilberto did. They reported the incident to the barangay, the Department of Social Welfare and Development and to the police. A case for rape was filed. He denied abusing the girl.
After trial, the regional trial court (RTC) convicted Edilberto of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua; and ordered him to pay P50,000 in civil indemnity, P50,000 in moral damages, and P30,000 in exemplary damages.
The RTC found the victim’s testimony as “straightforward, convincing, and consistent despite her mental deficiency; and there was no tinge of revenge or rancor in her testimony; and the fact of her mental's deficiency was well-established by competent medical evidence.”
The CA affirmed the jail term imposed on Edilberto. But it increased the monetary award to P75,000 for civil indemnity, P75,000 moral damages, and P75,000 for exemplary damages with six percent interest until fully paid.
The appellate court ruled that “the credible disclosure of that accused-appellant (Edilberto) raped her is the most important proof of the commission of the crime” and that “there is no evidence that the victim was moved by any improper motive.”
On Edilberto’s appeal, the SC said:
“At the onset, it must be noted that the information charged accused-appellant not only with rape, as punished by Article 266-A(l)(b), but also with the allegation that the accused-appellant knew of the mental retardation of complainant at the time of the commission of the offense.
“This, coupled with a review of the records and the Court's decision in People v. Castillo, compels the Court to convict accused-appellant with qualified statutory rape, despite the sub-silencio treatment of both trial and appellate courts on the qualifying circumstance alleged in the information.
“Here, it was undisputedly proven that the victim, at the age of 16 years old, was diagnosed to have a developmental age of 5 to 5.5 years old. This was testified to by her doctor as well as her family members.
“Further, her testimony on her experience under the hands of accused-appellant, whom she called ‘Kuya Boy’ or ‘Charles,’ convinces this Court that accused-appellant successfully had carnal knowledge of the victim.
“In the face of victim’s testimony, accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi fails. There is no showing that she was impelled by any improper motive. As the Court previously held, ‘considering the mental retardation of the victim, e find it highly improbable that she would fabricate the rape charge against appellant.
“It is likewise unlikely that she was instructed into accusing appellant given her limited intellect. Due to her mental condition, only a very traumatic experience would leave lasting impression on her so that she would be able to recall it when asked.
“Here, it is impossible for the accused-appellant to not have known the mental state and condition of victim. His intimate relationship with her biological mother, as well as victim’s frequent and scheduled visits every Sunday to his home, are sufficient proof to establish his culpability for the crime of qualified rape.
“Under Art. 266-B of the RPC (Revised Penal Code), qualified statutory rape shall be punished by death. However, due to the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, The Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, the penalty is automatically reduced to reclusion perpetua.
“Furthermore, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be qualified by the phrase ‘without eligibility for parole’ pursuant to the Court's guidelines in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.
“WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal; FINDS accused-appellant Edilberto Manuel, Jr. y Mangalindan GUILTY of Qualified Statutory Rape, as defined and punished under Article 266-A(l )( d), in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code; IMPOSES the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and ORDERS accused-appellant to PAY the following amounts: Pl00,000 as civil indemnity, Pl00,000 as moral damages, Pl00,000 as exemplary damages and to PAY interest on the said amounts at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. SO ORDERED.”