G.R. No. 220143. June 7, 2017.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
JONATHAN BAAY y FALCO, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Rape; Elements of.—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.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; As a general rule, on the
question of whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that
of the defense, the trial court’s choice is generally viewed as correct
and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to
conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’
demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their
testimonies.—Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that
findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by
the CA, are binding upon Us. As a general rule, on the question of
whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the
defense, the trial court’s choice is generally viewed as correct and
entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to
conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’
demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their
testimonies. The trial court is in the best position to discern if the
witnesses were telling the truth. Without any clear showing that
the trial court and the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood,
or misapplied some fact, or circumstances of weight and
substance, the rule should not be disturbed.
Criminal Law; Rape; Given the victim’s mental condition,
being a twenty-two (22)-year-old woman with a mental age of four
to five (4-5) years old, the Supreme Court (SC) finds it highly
improbable that she had simply concocted or fabricated the rape
charge against the accused-appellant. It neither finds it likely that
she was merely coached into testifying against accused-appellant,
precisely, consider-

_______________

*  THIRD DIVISION.

 
 
58

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baay

ing her limited intellect.—The fact that AAA’s testimony was

practiced and instructed by her mother to impute such serious
charge against the accused-appellant does not sway this Court.
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 that she
was merely coached into testifying against 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.
Same; Same; Mental Retardates; 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.”—We, however, find it erroneous for the RTC and the CA
to convict 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 the 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.”
Same; Same; Same; Death Penalty; 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.—At any rate, We sustain the penalty
of reclusion perpetua imposed by both the RTC and the CA.
Indeed, Article 266-B in relation to 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 accused-appellant knew of AAA’s mental
retardation, the same was not

 
 
59

VOL. 827, JUNE 7, 2017 59

People vs. Baay

alleged in the Information, hence, cannot be appreciated as a

qualifying circumstance.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals,

Eighteenth Division, Cebu City.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

TIJAM, J.:
 
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated February 26,
2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Eighteenth Division,
Cebu City, in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01590, which
sustained accused-appellant’s conviction for the crime of
Statutory Rape in a Decision2 dated January 4, 2013 by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mambusao, Capiz, Branch
21, in Criminal Case No. 09-0886-05.
 
The Factual and Procedural Antecedents
 
In an Information filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of
Capiz, accused-appellant was charged with rape as follows:

That sometime in the month of July 2005 in Brgy. Bungsi,

Mambusao, Capiz, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd design, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously did lie and have carnal knowledge of
one (AAA), a mentally (sic) retardate, against the will of the
latter.

_______________

1  Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, and

concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Jhosep Y.
Lopez, Rollo, pp. 4-14.
2  Penned by Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo S. Amular, CA Rollo, pp.
28-34.
  
 
60

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baay

That the commission of the rape is aggravated by the fact that

the private offended party is a mentally (sic) retardate who
though was then 22 years old at the time of the incident, yet,
considered and has mental faculties as that of a minor child.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3

 
Upon arraignment on April 14, 2010, accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty to the charge.4 Trial on the merits then
ensued.
The following are the events that led to the filing of the
complaint and Information, as narrated by the victim, AAA
and her mother, BBB.
AAA testified that sometime in July 2005, she was
drying palay when the accused-appellant invited her to go
to the forest. Upon arrival thereat, 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.5
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.6
The trial court, however, noted that as AAA’s
examination continued, AAA made conflicting answers to
the query as to whether or not accused-appellant had sex
with her, which prompted the court to reset the hearing to
give the witness time to rest. The defense objected to the
resetting, arguing

_______________

3  Id., at p. 28.
4  Id.
5  Id., at p. 29.
6  Id.

 
 
61

VOL. 827, JUNE 7, 2017 61

People vs. Baay

that it would give the prosecution the opportunity to coach

AAA.7
BBB testified that she came to know that her daughter
was pregnant when she brought her to Dr. Hector Flores
for a medical checkup and therein, AAA told her about the
rape incident in the forest. BBB also brought AAA to Dra.
Leah Florence Adicula-Sicad to assess AAA’s
mental/psychological status and then to the police for the
purpose of filing the complaint. On April 21, 2006, AAA
delivered a baby. This is AAA’s second child, the first was
fathered by a certain DDD.8
Dra. Adicula-Sicad testified that the mental faculties of
AAA are severely deficient in areas where the executive
functioning judgment and other areas of intellect are
concerned. According to Dra. Adicula-Sicad’s assessment,
AAA’s age is comparable to a child of around 4-5 years old
as a result of mental retardation, which is congenital in
nature. It being congenital in nature; the victim could not
have consented or would not be in any position to give
consent as to the consequences of a certain act.9
The defense presented the accused-appellant, Vicente
Monajan, Remegios Llorico, and accused-appellant’s
mother, Teresita Baay as witnesses.
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 in
July 2005 because from May 15 to August 30, 2005, he was
working on the farm of a certain Motet Monajan 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

_______________

7  Id., at pp. 29-30.

8  Id.
9  Id.

 
 
62

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baay

that AAA’s family accused him of rape because of the trees

he planted beside the pigpen owned by AAA’s family.10
The other defense witnesses testified on the
whereabouts of accused-appellant during the month when
the incident allegedly occurred to corroborate accused-
appellant’s testimony. In addition, Teresita Baay testified
that the conflict with AAA’s family started in September
2005 when they discovered that AAA was pregnant and the
latter’s family was ashamed that the child to be born had
no father. Also, AAA’s family has issues with accused-
appellant’s family because the former claimed ownership
over the trees planted by the latter.11
 
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
 
In its Decision dated January 4, 2013, the RTC found
that the prosecution was able to prove that the accused-
appellant had carnal knowledge with AAA, a mental
retardate, sometime in July 2005. It found AAA’s testimony
credible despite the apparent inconsistencies, explaining
that the same was due to her mental condition. The RTC
observed that AAA had the tendency to agree with leading
questions asked. However, despite some discrepancies,
AAA was consistent and positive in identifying accused-
appellant as the person who raped her.12 The trial court
also noted that in the case study dated January 4, 2006
conducted by Veronica Martinez, Municipal Social Welfare
and Development Officer of Mambusao, Capiz, AAA was
consistent in pointing to the accused-appellant as the
person who abused her. The RTC also rejected accused-
appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi to be unmeritorious.
Accordingly, the RTC ruled:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused-appellant

JONATHAN BAAY y FALCO alias “Jun-Jun”

_______________

10  Id., at p. 30.
11  Id.
12  Id., at p. 33.

 
 
 63

VOL. 827, JUNE 7, 2017 63

People vs. Baay

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape which is

defined and punished under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) in
relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is
ordered to pay private complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
plus P50,000.00 as moral damages.
If qualified under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by R.A. 6127 and E.O. 214, the accused, if he has agreed
in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rule imposed upon
convicted prisoners, shall be credited with the full duration of his
preventive imprisonment, otherwise, he shall only be credited
with 4/5 of the same.
SO ORDERED.13

 
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
 
In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the conviction
but modified the damages awarded, thus:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated

January 4, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region,
Branch 21, Mambusao, Capiz in Criminal Case No. 09-0886-05 for
Statutory Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accused Jonathan Baay is found GUILTY of the crime of
statutory rape as defined and punished under Article 266-A,
paragraph 1(d) in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to pay the
offended party AAA, the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages. The civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at
6% per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.

_______________

13  Id., at pp. 28-34.

 
 
64

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baay

SO ORDERED.14

 
Hence, this appeal.
Both the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the
People, and the accused-appellant manifested that they
will no longer file supplemental briefs.15
 
The Issue
 
Whether or not the CA, in affirming the decision of the
RTC, erred in convicting the accused-appellant of Statutory
Rape.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
We find the appeal unmeritorious albeit We modify the
designation of the crime committed, as well as the
indemnities awarded.
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.16
Accused-appellant faults the RTC for finding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of raping AAA. He insisted that
he should be acquitted of the charge because doubts linger
as to whether or not he had sex with AAA or the rape
incident happened, considering AAA’s conflicting responses
to the queries regarding the same. The accused-appellant
capitalizes on the fact that during AAA’s cross-
examination, the latter

_______________

14  Rollo, p. 13.
15  Id., at pp. 22-25 and 26-29.
16  People v. Dalan, G.R. No. 203086, June 11, 2014, 726 SCRA 335.

 
 
65

VOL. 827, JUNE 7, 2017 65

People vs. Baay

candidly stated that accused-appellant did not have sex

with her.
We sustain the conviction.
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.
We stress, at the outset, that prevailing jurisprudence
uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court,
particularly when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon
Us.17 As a general rule, on the question of whether to
believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense,
the trial court’s choice is generally viewed as correct and
entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent
to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the
witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the witness stand
as they gave their testimonies.18 The trial court is in the
best position to discern if the witnesses were telling the
truth.19 Without any clear showing that the trial court and
the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied some fact, or circumstances of weight and
substance, the rule should not be disturbed.20
In the case at bar, even though AAA’s testimony was not
flawless in all particulars, We do not find any justifiable
reason to deviate from the findings and conclusion of the
RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
The fact that AAA’s testimony was practiced and
instructed by her mother to impute such serious charge
against the accused-appellant does not sway this Court.
Given the

_______________

17  People v. Burce, G.R. No. 201732, March 26, 2014, 720 SCRA 212.
18  Id.
19  Id.
20  Id.

 
 
66

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baay

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
that she was merely coached into testifying against
accused-appellant, precisely, considering her limited
intellect.21 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.22
Likewise, the conflicting responses of AAA to the
questions on whether the accused-appellant had sex with
her were succinctly explained by the trial court. According
to the trial court’s observation, when AAA was asked
leading questions, she has the tendency to merely agree
with such leading question asked.23
The accused-appellant then used the said observation to
argue that the reason why AAA pointed to the accused-
appellant as the perpetrator was because she was asked
leading questions to that effect. Upon the other hand,
accused-appellant emphasized that AAA candidly admitted
on cross-examination that accused-appellant did not have
sex with her.24
We do not agree.
Notably, AAA’s statements that accused-appellant
indeed raped her or had sex with her were not entirely
solicited from leading questions in her direct testimony.
During AAA’s cross, redirect, and recross-examinations, the
trial court also propounded clarificatory questions in the
following manner:

_______________

21   People v. Tablang, G.R. No. 174859, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA
757.
22  Id.
23  CA Rollo, p. 32.
24  Accused-appellant’s Brief, id., at p. 20.

 
 
67

VOL. 827, JUNE 7, 2017 67

People vs. Baay

COURT: But truly the accused did not have sex with you, am I
correct?
A: I was raped, sir.
x x x
COURT: If according to you accused Jonathan Baay did not
have sex with you, who had sex with you?
A: Jonathan Baay, Your Honor.
x x x
Q: Why he should (sic) be imprisoned?
A: Because he has done wrong, Your Honor, he raped me.
Q: It was a different man who had sex with you?
A: Jonathan Baay, sir. 25

 
Clearly, the foregoing are not leading questions. It is,
thus, not merely leading questions which brought about
AAA’s statement pointing to him as the person who had sex
with her, contrary to the accused-appellant’s contention.
At any rate, the trial court correctly pointed out that
what is significant, notwithstanding discrepancies in AAA’s
testimony, was the positive identification of the accused-
appellant as the person who raped or had sex with her. We
also could not disregard the study dated January 4, 2006
conducted by Veronica D. Martinez, Municipal Social
Welfare and Development Officer of Mambusao, Capiz, that
AAA was consistent in identifying accused-appellant as the
person who abused her.26
We also find no reason to discredit AAA’s testimony by
the defense’s imputation of ill motive against AAA and her
family. The defense claims that the case was filed against
accused-appellant because AAA’s family got angry with the
accused-appellant’s family because they claimed ownership

_______________

25  Id., at pp. 54-55.

26  Id., at p. 32.

 
 
68

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baay

over the trees planted by the latter. It is also alleged that

the conflict between the parties started when the accused-
appellant’s family discovered that AAA was pregnant and
her family was ashamed that the child would be born
without a father.
Again, these fail to persuade Us.
We find such conflict as regards the “trees planted” too
flimsy and insignificant for AAA or her family to charge
accused-appellant of such a serious crime and to make AAA
publicly disclose that she had been raped and undergo the
concomitant humiliation, anxiety, and exposure to a public
trial.27 Likewise, We find no reason nor wisdom in filing a
criminal case against accused-appellant by mere reason
that AAA’s family was ashamed that AAA bore a child
without a father. Indeed, AAA’s family would be subject to
the same, if not worse, situation in filing the case as such
would inevitably put AAA in public scrutiny.
Accused-appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi deserve
scant consideration. As can be gleaned from the records,
the testimonies of the defense witnesses which should
supposedly support accused-appellant’s alibi did not clearly
state that it was indeed impossible for the accused-
appellant to have raped AAA. At most, their testimonies
merely proved that accused-appellant worked on a farm
from May to August 2005.
In all, We affirm the RTC and CA’s finding that the
accused-appellant indeed raped AAA.
We, however, find it erroneous for the RTC and the CA
to convict 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

_______________

27  People v. Abat, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 557.

 
 
69

VOL. 827, JUNE 7, 2017 69

People vs. Baay

old.28 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 the
least, the carnal knowledge between the accused and the
victim.29
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.”30 This Court, in the
case of People v. Dalan,31 explained:

We are not unaware that there have been cases where the
Court stated that sexual intercourse with a mental retardate
constitutes statutory rape. Nonetheless, the Court in these cases,
affirmed the accused’s conviction for simple rape despite a finding
that the victim as a mental retardate with a mental age of a
person less than 12 years old.
Based on these discussions, we hold that the term statutory
rape should only be confined to situations where the
victim of rape is a person less than 12 years of age. If the
victim of rape is a person with mental abnormality, deficiency, or
retardation, the crime committed is simple rape under Article
266-A, paragraph 1(b) as she is considered “deprived of reason”
notwithstanding that her mental age is equivalent to that of a
person under 12. In short, carnal knowledge with a mental
retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12
years, while akin to statutory rape under Article 266-A,
paragraph 1(d), should still be

_______________

28  Supra note 16.

29  Id.
30  Id.
31  Id.

 
 
70

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baay

designated as simple rape under paragraph 1(b).32

(emphasis supplied)

 
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 both the RTC and the CA. Indeed,
Article 266-B in relation to 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.33 In
this case, while it was proven and admitted during trial
that accused-appellant knew of AAA’s mental retardation,
the same was not alleged in the Information, hence, cannot
be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.34
Anent the award of damages, the increase of the award
of exemplary damages from Php30,000 to Php75,000 is
proper, in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence on
the matter.35 The awards of civil indemnity and moral
damages in the amount of Php75,000 each are
maintained.36
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal
is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in Cebu City dated February 26, 2015 in C.A.-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01590 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. Accused Jonathan

Baay is found GUILTY of the crime of simple

_______________

32  Id.
33  People v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA
715.
34  Id.
 35  People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
36  Id.

 
 
71

VOL. 827, JUNE 7, 2017 71

People vs. Baay

rape as defined and punished under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b)

in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code and is thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay 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.

 
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Del Castillo**

and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that

“mental retardation can be proven by evidence other than
medical/clinical evidence, such as the testimony of
witnesses and even the observation by the trial court.”
(People vs. Ventura, Sr., 719 SCRA 223 [2014])
Carnal knowledge of a woman who is mentally deficient
constitutes rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, as such a woman
is automatically considered incapable of giving consent to a
sexual act. (People vs. Palotes, 761 SCRA 633 [2015])
 
——o0o——

_______________

** Designated additional member per Raffle dated March 15, 2017.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.