GR NO 173822

DECISION
On May 4, 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Sorsogon, convicted the petitioners of murder.[1] On December 13, 2005,
the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed their conviction in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 01450, but modified the awarded damages.[2]
The petitioners contest the CAs affirmance of their conviction in this appeal via petition for review on certiorari.
We affirm their conviction, but we reduce the penalty imposed on Salvador Monreal because the RTC and the CA did not duly
appreciate his minority at the time of the commission of the crime. We order his immediate release from prison because he already
served his sentence, as hereby modified. Also, we add to the damages to which the heirs of the victim were entitled in order to accord
with the prevailing law and jurisprudence.
Antecedents
On June 20, 1994, the Office of the Sorsogon Provincial Prosecutor formally charged the petitioners and a certain Danilo Atizado
(Danilo) with murder through the following information, to wit:
That on or about the 18th day of April 1994, at Barangay Boga, Municipality of Castilla, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, and without any justifiable cause or
motive, with intent to kill, armed with handguns, attack, assault and shot one Rogelio Llona y Llave, a Sangguniang Bayan member of
Castilla, Sorsogon, thereby inflicting upon him mortal and serious wounds which directly caused his instantaneous death, to the
damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW. [3]
After the petitioners and Danilo pleaded not guilty to the information on November 7, 1994,[4] the trial ensued.
The witnesses for the State were Simeona Mirandilla (Mirandilla), Major Saadra Gani (Major Gani), Dr. Wilhelmo Abrantes (Dr.
Abrantes), Lawrence Llona (Lawrence), and Herminia Llona (Herminia).
Mirandilla narrated that on April 18, 1994 she and the late Rogelio Llona (Llona), her common-law husband, had attended the fiesta of
Barangay Bonga in Castilla, Sorsogon; that at about 8 pm of that date, they had gone to the house of Manuel Desder (Desder) in the
same barangay; that as they and Jose Jesalva (Jesalva), a barangay kagawad of the place, were seated in the sala of Desders house,
she heard thundering steps as if people were running and then two successive gunshots; that she then saw Atizado pointing a gun at
the prostrate body of Llona; that seeing Atizado about to shoot Llona again, she shouted: Stop, thats enough!; that while aiding Llona,
she heard three clicking sounds, and, turning towards the direction of the clicking sounds, saw Monreal point his gun at her while he
was moving backwards and simultaneously adjusting the cylinder of his gun; that the petitioners then fled the scene of the shooting;
that she rushed to the house of barangay captain Juanito Lagonsing (Lagonsing) to report the shooting; and that she and Lagonsing
brought Llona to a hospital where Llona was pronounced dead.[5]

Major Gani testified that the petitioners and Danilo were arrested on May 18, 1994,[6] based on the warrant of arrest issued by Judge
Teodisio R. Dino, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court in Castilla, Sorsogon.
Dr. Abrantes confirmed that Llona died due to two gunshot wounds in the back that penetrated his spinal column, liver, and abdomen.[7]
Lawrence and Herminia stated that the Llona family spent P30,000.00 for the funeral expenses of Llona.[8]
Denying the accusation, the petitioners interposed alibi. The witnesses for the Defense were Monreal, Roger Villafe (Villafe), Merlinda
Lolos, Joseph Lorenzana (Lorenzana), Jesalva, and Lagonsing.
The Defense showed that at the time of the commission of the crime, Atizado had been in his family residence in Barangay Tomalaytay,
Castilla,
Sorsogon, because he had been sick of influenza, while Monreal and Danilo had been in the house of a certain Ariel also in Barangay
Tomalaytay, Castilla, Sorsogon drinking gin; that the petitioners and Danilo had not been recognized to be at the crime scene during the
shooting of Llona; and that the petitioners had been implicated only because of their being employed by their uncle Lorenzana, the
alleged mastermind in the killing of Llona.
As stated, on May 4, 2000, the RTC convicted the petitioners but acquitted Danilo, viz:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with the qualifying circumstance of
treachery, the Court hereby sentences each of the accused to an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of Rogelio
Llona the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, Philippines currency, in solidum, as civil indemnity, without subsidiary

imprisonment in case of insolvency; to reimburse the heirs of the victim the amount of P30,000.00 as actual expenses and to pay the
cost.
Accused Danilo Atizado on reasonable doubt is hereby acquitted of the crime charged and he being a detention prisoner, his immediate
release from the provincial jail is hereby ordered, unless he is charged of other lawful cause or causes.
Accused Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal being detained, shall be credited in full in the service of their sentence.
SO ORDERED.[9]
The Court referred the petitioners direct appeal to the CA pursuant to People v. Mateo.[10]
On December 13, 2005, the CA affirmed the conviction, disposing:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellants Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal are hereby
ordered to suffer the imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua. Likewise, they are ordered to pay the heirs of Rogelio Llona the amount of:
(a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P30,000.00 as actual damages; and (c) P50,000.00 as moral damages
SO ORDERED.[11]
After the CA denied their motion for reconsideration,[12] the petitioners now appeal
Issue: The petitioners submit that the RTC and the CA erred in finding them guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt based on the
eyewitness testimony of Mirandilla despite her not being a credible witness; that some circumstances rendered Mirandillas testimony
unreliable, namely: (a) she had failed to identify them as the assailants of Llona, because she had not actually witnessed them shooting
at Llona; (b) she had merely assumed that they had been the assailants from the fact that they had worked for Lorenzana, the
supposed mastermind; (c) the autopsy report stated that Llona had been shot from a distance, not at close range, contrary to
Mirandillas claim; (d) Mirandillas testimony was contrary to human experience; and (e) Mirandillas account was inconsistent with that of
Jesalvas.
Ruling: The conviction of the petitioners is affirmed, subject to modifications in the penalty imposed on Monreal and in the amounts and
kinds of damages as civil liability.

G.R. No. 193507

January 30, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
REY MONTICALVO y MAGNO, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00457 dated 3 December 2009 affirming in toto the
Decision2 of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catarman, Northern Samar, in Criminal Case No. C-3460 dated 18 October
2005 finding herein appellant Rey Monticalvo y Magno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape of a demented person
committed against AAA,3 thereby imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Appellant Rey Monticalvo y Magno was charged with raping AAA in an Information4 dated 30 April 2003, the accusatory portion of
which reads:
That on or about the 9th day of December 2002 at about 7:00 oclock in the evening in Bgy. XXX, Municipality of XXX, Province of XXX,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named appellant, actuated by lust and with lewd design, with
force and intimidation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with AAA, 12 years old and is
suffering from mental disorder or is demented or has mental disability, without the consent and against the will of said victim.5
[Emphasis supplied].
On arraignment, appellant, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded NOT GUILTY6 to the crime charged.
At the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense failed to make any stipulation of facts.7 The pre-trial conference was then
terminated and trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) AAA, the private offended party; (2) BBB, mother of AAA; (3) Analiza Pait
(Analiza), neighbor and friend of AAA; (4) Dr. Jesus Emmanuel Nochete (Dr. Nochete), Medical Officer IV, Northern Samar Provincial
Hospital; and (5) Dr. Vincent Anthony M. Belicena (Dr. Belicena), Medical Specialist II, Northern SamarProvincial Hospital. Their
testimonies established the following facts:

AAA is a mental retardate and was 12 years and 11 months old at the time of the rape incident.8 She and appellant, who was then 17
years old,9 are neighbors their respective houses are adjoining each other.10
In the afternoon of 9 December 2002, AAA and her friend, Analiza, were in front of the sari-sari store of AAAs mother, BBB, while
appellant was inside the fence of their house adjacent to the said sari-sari store. Shortly, thereafter, appellant invited AAA to go with him
to the kiln at the back of their house. AAA acceded and went ahead.11
Upon seeing appellant and AAA going to the kiln, Analiza, pretending to look for her one peso coin, followed them until she reached a
papaya tree located three and a half meters away from the place. Analiza hid under the papaya tree and from there she saw appellant
undress AAA by removing the latters shorts and panty. Appellant, however, glanced and saw Analiza. Frightened, Analiza ran away and
went back to the sari-sari store of BBB without telling BBB what she saw.12
Appellant proceeded to satisfy his bestial desire. After undressing AAA, appellant made her lie down. He then placed himself on top of
AAA and made push and pull movements. Afterwards, appellant stopped, allowed AAA to sit down for a while and then sent her
home.13
When AAA arrived at their house around 7:30 p.m., she was asked by her mother, BBB, where she came from and why she came
home late. AAA replied that she was at the back of their house as appellant brought her there and had sexual intercourse with her.14
The following day, BBB brought AAA to the police station and then to the Northern Samar Provincial Hospital where AAA was examined
by Dr. Nochete.15 The medical examination yielded the following:
The findings are:
= Confluent abrasion 1 x 1 inches, 2 inches below the umbilicus.
Genitalia Exam:
= Admits 1 finger with ease.
= (-) vulvar swelling, (-) erythema.
= (+) complete healed hymenal laceration at 5 oclock, 7 oclock & 10 oclock position.
Gram Stain Result: Negative for spermatozoa.16
Dr. Nochete explained that AAA could have possibly sustained those complete healed hymenal lacerations more than a month prior to
the date of the examination. He also clarified that even though AAA has no fresh hymenal laceration it does not necessarily mean that
no sexual intercourse was committed on her on 9 December 2002. It is possible that AAA did not sustain any fresh hymenal laceration
because the vaginal canal has become loose. He did not also find any trace of spermatozoa on AAAs vagina, its presence being
dependent on whether the appellant did ejaculate or not.17
AAA was also examined by Dr. Belicena, a Psychiatrist at the Northern Samar Provincial Hospital, who found that AAA is suffering from
moderate to severe mental retardation, meaning, AAA is suffering from the specific form of below average intelligence that has a low
reproduction functioning resulting in impaired functioning. This finding was obtained through mental examination and actual interview of
AAA. Dr. Belicena, however, recommended a full battery of psychological testing to determine AAAs exact mental age.18 Dr. Belicenas
finding was reduced into writing as evidenced by a Medical Certificate19 dated 18 May 2004.
For its part, the defense offered the testimonies of (1) Pio Campos (Pio), neighbor and friend of appellant; (2) Cesar Monticalvo (Cesar),
appellants father; (3) Alexander Sanico (Alexander), Local Civil Registrar of Bobon, Northern Samar; and (4) appellant, who invoked
the defense of denial and alibi to exonerate himself from the crime charged.
Appellant denied having raped AAA. He claimed that on 9 December 2002, at around 1:00 p.m., he, together with Pio and a certain
Dinnes Samson, was having a drinking spree in the house of one Adolfo Congayao (Adolfo). They finished drinking at around 6:00 p.m.
As he was too drunk, Pio assisted him in going home. He went to sleep and woke up only at 12:00 midnight as he needed to urinate.
He went back to sleep and woke up at 6:00 a.m. of the following day, i.e., 10 December 2002. He was surprised that AAA charged him
with rape. He was then arrested at around 3:00 p.m. of 10 December 2002.20
Appellant disclosed, however, that the house of Adolfo, where they had their drinking spree, is more or less six (6) meters away from
the house of AAA. In fact, he could still see the house of AAA even when he was in the house of Adolfo. He similarly admitted that he
knew very well that AAA is suffering from mental abnormalities. He also divulged that he asked Pio to testify on his behalf.21
Appellants testimony was corroborated on all material points by Pio and his father, Cesar, who also admitted that he personally knew
AAA as she is their neighbor. Cesar also knew that AAA is suffering from mental disorder.22 Both Pio and Cesar confirmed that on 9
December 2002, they brought appellant to his bedroom and let him sleep there because he was too drunk. Thereafter, Pio and Cesar
engaged in a drinking spree inside the latters house, particularly at the kitchen that is more than two (2) meters away from appellants
bedroom, which lasted until 11:00 p.m. Pio and Cesar likewise stated that there was no moment that appellant went out of his bedroom
since the time they brought him there.23

Alexander, another defense witness, presented appellants Certificate of Live Birth24 to prove that the latter was only 17 years old
during the commission of the crime, i.e., 9 December 2002.25
The trial court, convinced about the merits of the prosecutions case rendered a Decision on 18 October 2005, finding the appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape of a demented person and sentenced him to an imprisonment term of reclusion
perpetua and ordered him to indemnify AAA in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

On appeal, the following errors were assigned:

I.THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE OF
A DEMENTED PERSON DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE APPELLANTS AGE, BEING A MINOR, ATTHE TIME OF
THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
III.THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO IMPOSE THE PROPER PENALTY.26
G.R. No. 168546
July 23, 2008
MICHAEL PADUA, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for review assails the Decision1 dated April 19, 2005 and Resolution2 dated June 14,
2005, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86977 which had respectively dismissed Michael
Paduas petition for certiorari and denied his motion for reconsideration. Paduas petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailed the Orders dated May 11, 20043 and July 28,
20044 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 168, Pasig City, which had denied his petition for
probation.
The facts, culled from the records, are as follows:
On June 16, 2003, petitioner Michael Padua and Edgar Allan Ubalde were charged before the RTC,
Branch 168, Pasig City of violating Section 5,5 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,6 otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," for selling dangerous drugs.7 The
Information reads:
The Prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor, charges Edgar Allan Ubalde y
Velchez a.k.a. "Allan" and Michael Padua y Tordel a.k.a. "Mike", with the crime of violation of Sec.
5, Art. II, Republic Act No. 9165 in relation to R.A. [No.] 8369, Sec. 5 par. (a) and (i), committed as
follows:
On or about June 6, 2003, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, Edgar Allan Ubalde y Velchez and Michael Padua y Tordel, a minor, seventeen (17) years
old, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Roland A. Panis, a police poseurbuyer, one (1) folded newsprint containing 4.86 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, which
was found positive to the tests for marijuana, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law.8
When arraigned on October 13, 2003, Padua, assisted by his counsel de oficio, entered a plea of
not guilty.9
During the pre-trial conference on February 2, 2004, however, Paduas counsel manifested that
his client was willing to withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty to avail of the
benefits granted to first-time offenders under Section 7010 of Rep. Act No. 9165. The prosecutor
interposed no objection.11 Thus, the RTC on the same date issued an Order12 stating that the
former plea of Padua of not guilty was considered withdrawn. Padua was re-arraigned and
pleaded guilty. Hence, in a Decision13 dated February 6, 2004, the RTC found Padua guilty of the
crime charged:

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused Michael Padua y Tordel guilty of [v]iolation of
Sec. 5 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in relation to R.A. No. 8369 Sec. 5 par. (a) and (i) thereof, and
therefore, sentences him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day of
Prision Mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as
maximum and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
No subsidiary imprisonment, however, shall be imposed should [the] accused fail to pay the fine
pursuant to Art. 39 par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.14
Padua subsequently filed a Petition for Probation15 dated February 10, 2004 alleging that he is a
minor and a first-time offender who desires to avail of the benefits of probation under
Presidential Decree No. 96816 (P.D. No. 968), otherwise known as "The Probation Law of 1976"
and Section 70 of Rep. Act No. 9165. He further alleged that he possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications under the said laws.
The RTC in an Order17 dated February 10, 2004 directed the Probation Officer of Pasig City to
conduct a Post-Sentence Investigation and submit a report and recommendation within 60 days
from receipt of the order. The City Prosecutor was also directed to submit his comment on the
said petition within five days from receipt of the order.
On April 6, 2004, Chief Probation and Parole Officer Josefina J. Pasana submitted a Post-Sentence
Investigation Report to the RTC recommending that Padua be placed on probation.18
However, on May 11, 2004, public respondent Pairing Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio issued an Order
denying the Petition for Probation on the ground that under Section 2419 of Rep. Act No. 9165,
any person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation
Law. The court ruled thus:
Before this Court now is the Post-Sentence Investigation Report (PSIR) on minor Michael Padua y
Tordel prepared by Senior Parole and Probation Officer Teodoro Villaverde and submitted by the
Chief of the Pasig City Parole and Probation Office, Josefina J. Pasana.
In the aforesaid PSIR, Senior PPO Teodoro Villaverde recommended that minor Michael Padua y
Tordel be placed on probation, anchoring his recommendation on Articles 189 and 192 of P.D.
603, otherwise known as the Child and Welfare Code, as amended, which deal with the
suspension of sentence and commitment of youthful offender. Such articles, therefore, do not
find application in this case, the matter before the Court being an application for probation by
minor Michael Padua y Tordel and not the suspension of his sentence.
On the other hand, Section 70 is under Article VIII of R.A. 9165 which deals with the Program for
Treatment and Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents. Sections 54 to 76, all under Article VIII of R.A.
9165 specifically refer to violations of either Section 15 or Section 11. Nowhere in Article VIII was
[v]iolation of Section 5 ever mentioned.
More importantly, while the provisions of R.A. 9165, particularly Section 70 thereof deals with
Probation or Community Service for First- Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment, the Court
is of the view and so holds that minor Michael Padua y Tordel who was charged and convicted of
violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165, cannot avail of probation under said section in view of
the provision of Section 24 which is hereunder quoted:
"Sec. 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. Any person
convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the
Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968,
as amended." (underlining supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Probation filed by Michael Padua y Tord[e]l
should be, as it is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.20
Padua filed a motion for reconsideration of the order but the same was denied on July 28, 2004.
He filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals assailing the order, but
the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated April 19, 2005, dismissed his petition. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and
ordered DISMISSED.

G.R. No. 184874

October 9, 2009
ROBERT REMIENDO y SIBLAWAN, Petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
Decision2 dated November 16, 2007 and the Resolution3 dated October 3, 2008 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 29316 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Robert Remiendo y
Siblawan."
The case arose from the filing of two criminal informations, both dated March 10, 2008, against
petitioner Robert Remiendo y Siblawan (Remiendo), that read
Criminal Case No. 98-CR-2999
That in or about the month of March 1997, at Badiwan, Municipality of Tuba, Benguet Province,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], a girl
below 12 years of age.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Criminal Case No. 98-CR-3000
That in or about the month of May 1997, at Badiwan, Municipality of Tuba, Benguet Province,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], a girl
below 12 years of age.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
Upon arraignment, Remiendo pled "not guilty" to both charges. After pretrial, a joint trial ensued
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, La Trinidad, Benguet. Both the prosecution and
the defense presented their respective evidence, summarized by the CA in its Decision, to wit:
The prosecution presented the following version of facts:
The complainant [AAA] was born on 16 February 1986. At the time of the commission of the
offense, she was a minor below 12 years of age. She knew accused-appellant Robert Remiendo
as he was residing near the house where her family used to stay. Sometime in March 1997, she
was sexually assaulted by accused-appellant inside said house. On that day, her parents and
brother left for work after breakfast, and she was left alone in the house. Accused-appellant
came in, pushed her into the room, and threatened to kill her if she reported what happened. He
undressed himself and the complainant. The latter was standing and refused to remove her
panty but she obliged when accused-appellant insisted. Then he made her lie on the bed and
placed his penis in her vagina. The complainant struggled, moved, and pushed accusedappellant. She felt pain when accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. She cried until
accused-appellant left, but she did not shout because accused-appellant warned her not to, or
else he would kick her. She put on her clothes after accused-appellant left. Her parents arrived in
the afternoon but she did not tell them what happened to her because her mother might whip
her.
Sometime in May 1997, [AAA] was again sexually assaulted by accused-appellant, which took
place in the house of the latter. At that time, she was on her way to see her mother at her
workplace after she had lunch. When she passed by the house of accused-appellant, the latter
pulled her into his house and brought her into his room. She cried and shouted but accusedappellant told her to keep quiet. She struggled but was helpless because accused-appellant was
stronger. They were alone in the room. Accused-appellant removed his clothes and told her to
remove her panty. Afraid, she removed her panty and was made to lie on the bed. Accusedappellant inserted his penis into her vagina and she felt pain. She kept on moving but she could

not push away accused-appellant. She moved her shoulders and pushed accused-appellant with
both hands but he was stronger. Afterwards, accused-appellant moved away and threatened to
kill her if she told anyone what happened. She responded that she would not tell anyone. Later,
she executed a sworn statement and identified accused-appellant as the person who raped her.
Dr. Ronald R. Bandonill, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)Cordillera Administrative Region, physically examined the complainant on 2 January 1998. Said
medico-legal officer testified that [AAA] was thirteen (13) years old and a Grade III pupil at
Badiwan Tuba, Benguet at the time of the examination. She was four feet and eleven inches
(411") tall, weighed 78 pounds, fairly nourished, and fairly developed. She was conscious,
coherent, and cooperative. She was ambulatory and had no extra-genital injuries. Upon
examination of her genital area, he found old lacerations of the hymen at 5:00 and 7:00 oclock
positions, which meant that her hymen was altered by a hard rigid instrument. The lacerations
were done more than three (3) months prior to the examination. To determine the approximate
size of the object that the hymenal opening could accommodate, he inserted a test tube. The
2.5-centimeter diameter of said tube was admitted with ease by the hymenal orifice. He noted
that the vaginal walls were lax and the ridges inside were smothered. The complainant told him
that accused-appellant raped her. He presented a written report of his findings.
On 12 July 1998, psychiatrist Dr. Elsie I. Caducoy conducted an examination of the mental
condition of the complainant. The latter was also scheduled for psychological examination to be
conducted by Elma Buadken. The result of the examination showed that [AAA] is suffering from
psychosis and organicity. She has a below average intelligence quotient of 88, but not on the
level of mental retardation. She can perform simple tasks but needs guidance. As to her studies,
she can hardly comprehend what is being taught to her. Having psychosis means that her brain
is afflicted with a disease. Her medical history showed that she suffered head and body injuries
brought about by being sideswiped by a motor vehicle sometime in 1996. She was confined in
the hospital for twelve (12) days. Said injuries substantially contributed to her present condition.
Organicity, on the other hand, means that the complainant suffers from a cloud of memory,
upward rolling of the eyeballs, stiffening of the extremities, loss of consciousness, and epileptic
seizures. Her psychosis occurs after seizure. She is not, however, insane. During a seizure, she
does not know what is going on, but afterwards she returns to her level of consciousness. With
regular medication, her seizures will be greatly minimized. During her interview, the complainant
had a seizure and the psychiatrist had to wait until her consciousness level returned. The
complainant then revealed that accused-appellant and a certain Reynoso Cera raped her. The
psychiatrist opined that during the rape, she did not have a seizure because if she had, she
would not have remembered what had happened. The fact that she was able to narrate what
happened and who raped her suggested that she was on her conscious level at such time. A
written report of the foregoing findings was submitted in court.
The defense presented the following version of facts:
Lea F. Chiwayan, thirteen (13) years old, testified that she was a friend, playmate, and neighbor
of the complainant. She testified that she and [AAA] played together and talked about their
"crushes." The complainant told Lea Chiwayan that she had a crush on accused-appellant.
Sometime in April or May 1997, the complainant said that her brother had molested her, and that
he and his father had sexual intercourse with her in their house in Poyopoy, Tuba. Sometime in
August 1997, the complainant confided that Reynoso Cera raped her in his house. She told Lea
Chiwayan that she did not feel anything because she was used to having sexual intercourse with
brother and father. One Saturday afternoon, Lea Chiwayan and the complainant were playing
when they saw accused-appellant going to the basketball court near the church. They followed
him and watched a basketball game. After the game, Lea Chiwayan went home with the others
while the complainant stayed behind. A few seconds after they left, the complainant ran after
them and told them that something happened between her and accused-appellant. She said that
accused-appellant pulled her towards the back of the church and had sexual intercourse with her.
The complainant later took back what she said because she was only joking. She then asked Lea
Chiwayan not to tell the accused-appellant. However, Lea Chiwayan told accused-appellant what
the complainant told them. Accused-appellant confronted the complainant. He flicked a finger on
her head, kicked and spanked her. He said, "what are you saying, why did I do that, if I like and I
do it, Ill not do it with you, you should be ashamed of yourself." He then borrowed the vehicle of

a certain Junie, started the engine, and stepped on the gas such that the fumes from the exhaust
pipe were directed at the complainant. Later, Lea Chiwayan learned that [AAA] filed a case
against accused-appellant.
Dolores L. Daniel, Grade II teacher of [AAA] for the school year 1997-1998, testified that the
latter was unruly and a liar. The complainant would pick fights and steal money from her
classmates. However, the witness admitted that there was no written record in school that she
reprimanded complainant for her behavior. She knew that the complainant had an accident
before.
Victor Daniel, a jitney operator, testified that accused-appellant was one of his drivers. He
described accused-appellant as a hardworking and industrious person. When he learned that
Robert Remiendo was accused of rape, he was outraged because he knew the daily activities of
accused-appellant. The latter could not have done such act under his strict supervision.
Accused-appellant testified that he knew the complainant, as she was a townmate of his mother.
In September 1996, he and his parents were then residing in Badiwan. When the complainant
figured in an accident at that time, he was the one who informed her parents. The first time he
saw the complainant was during the time when he was doing some repairs on his jitney. He saw
the complainant and her playmates go inside the jitney. He told them to alight from the vehicle.
Sometime in June 1997, he again saw the complainant and her sister playing inside the jitney. He
told them to alight as they were disturbing him. On the day he was playing basketball at the
church grounds in Badiwan, Lea and Emma Chiwayan approached him and asked him if it was
true that he raped [AAA]. He asked where the latter was and went to see her. Out of anger, he
borrowed the vehicle of Junie, started the engine, directed the exhaust pipe at the complainant,
and revved the engine so the smoke would go straight to her. He slapped her and said "if I would
like someone, it would not be you because there are a lot of girls better than you." During the
Christmas party in Badiwan, he again saw the complainant roaming around the dance area. He
told her to get out as she irritated the people dancing. The complainant said nothing and left the
dance floor. Thereafter, he saw the complainant laughing and smiling. He learned that he was
charged with two (2) counts of rape when he received a subpoena issued by the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor in January 1998.61avvph!1
In its Joint Judgment7 dated October 27, 2004, the RTC found Remiendo guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of two (2) counts of statutory rape. The RTC disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the court finds ROBERT REMIENDO y SIBLAWAN guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape as charged in the Information docketed as
Criminal Case No. 98-CR-2999 and in the Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 98-CR-3000,
and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum
for each count of rape.
He shall further indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) by way of civil indemnity, the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) by way of
moral damages, and the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) by way of exemplary
damages.
Pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 4-92-A of the Court Administrator, the Provincial Jail
Warden of Benguet Province is directed to immediately transfer the said accused, Robert
Remiendo, to the custody of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila after the
expiration of fifteen (15) days from date of promulgation unless otherwise ordered by this Court.
Let a copy of this Judgment be furnished the Provincial Jail Warden of Benguet Province for his
information, guidance and compliance.
SO ORDERED.8
Aggrieved, Remiendo interposed his appeal before the CA. In its assailed Decision, the CA
affirmed the RTC, modifying only the civil liability imposed upon Remiendo. The fallo of the CA
Decision reads
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint Judgment dated 27
October 2004 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, La Trinidad, Benguet, is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION on the civil liability of accused-appellant. He is ordered to pay the
complainant, for each count of rape, the sum of (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, (b) P50,000.00
as moral damages, and (c) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Considering that AAA was more than 12 years of age, Remiendo then questions her credibility as a witness, claiming that she was
smiling during her testimony; and that her failure to flee from the situation, even taking off her panties herself, belies her charges of
statutory rape against him.
We disagree.
As provided in Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory rape. Its two
elements are: (1) that the accused has carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. Sexual
congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape.