4/20/2016

G.R.No.145225

TodayisWednesday,April20,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.145225April2,2004
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,appellee,
vs.
SALVADORGOLIMLIM@"BADONG",appellants.
DECISION
CARPIOMORALES,J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 of June 9, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 65 in
Criminal Case No. 241, finding appellant Salvador Golimlim alias "Badong" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
rape,imposingonhimthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua,andholdinghimcivillyliableintheamountofP50,000.00
asindemnity,andP50,000.00asmoraldamages.
TheInformationdatedApril16,1997filedagainstappellantreadsasfollows:
That sometime in the month of August, 1996, at Barangay Bical, Municipality of Bulan, Province of
Sorsogon,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourttheabovenamedaccused,armed
with a bladed weapon, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously,havecarnalknowledgeofoneEvelynCanchelaagainstherwillandwithoutherconsent,toher
damageandprejudice.
Contrarytolaw.2
UponarraignmentonDecember15,1997,3appellant,dulyassistedbycounsel,pleadednotguiltytotheoffense
charged.
Thefactsestablishedbytheprosecutionareasfollows:
Private complainant Evelyn G. Canchela (Evelyn), is a mental retardate. When her mother, Amparo
Hachero,leftforSingaporeonMay2,1996toworkasadomestichelper,sheentrustedEvelyntothecare
andcustodyofher(Amparos)sisterJovitaGubanandherhusbandSalvadorGolimlim,hereinappellant,at
BarangayBical,Bulan,Sorsogon.4
Sometime in August 1996, Jovita left the conjugal residence to meet a certain Rosing, 5 leaving Evelyn with
appellant. Taking advantage of the situation, appellant instructed private complainant to sleep,6 and soon after
shehadlaiddown,hekissedherandtookoffherclothes.7AshepokedatheranobjectwhichtoEvelynfeltlikea
knife,8heproceededtoinserthispenisintohervagina.9Hislustsatisfied,appellantfellasleep.
WhenJovitaarrived,Evelyntoldheraboutwhatappellantdidtoher.Jovita,however,didnotbelieveherandin
factshescoldedher.10
SometimeinDecemberofthesameyear,LornaHachero,Evelynshalfsister,receivedaletterfromtheirmother
AmparoinstructinghertofetchEvelynfromSorsogonandallowhertostayinNovaliches,QuezonCitywhereshe
(Lorna)resided.Dutifully,LornaimmediatelyrepairedtoappellantshomeinBical,andbroughtEvelynwithherto
Manila.
AweekaftershebroughtEvelyntostaywithher,Lornasuspectedthathersisterwaspregnantasshenoticed
hergrowingbelly.ShethereuponbroughthertoadoctoratthePascualGeneralHospitalatBaeza,Novaliches,
QuezonCityforcheckupandultrasoundexamination.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_145225_2004.html

1/8

4/20/2016

G.R.No.145225

Lornas suspicions were confirmed as the examinations revealed that Evelyn was indeed pregnant.11 She thus
askedhersisterhowshebecamepregnant,towhichEvelynrepliedthatappellanthadsexualintercoursewithher
whileholdingaknife.12
In February of 1997, the sisters left for Bulan, Sorsogon for the purpose of filing a criminal complaint against
appellant.ThepoliceinBulan,however,advisedthemtofirsthaveEvelynexamined.Obliging,thetworepaired
on February 24, 1997 to the Municipal Health Office of Bulan, Sorsogon where Evelyn was examined by Dr.
EstrellaPayoyo.13TheMedicolegalReportrevealedthefollowingfindings,quotedverbatim:
FINDINGS:LMP[lastmenstrualperiod]:Aug.96?
Abd[abdomen]:7monthsAOG[ageofgestation]
FHT[fetalhearttone]:148/min
Presentation:Cephalic
Hymen:oldlacerationat3,5,7,&11oclockposition14
Onthesameday,thesisterswentbacktotheInvestigationSectionoftheBulanMunicipalPoliceStationbefore
whichtheyexecutedtheirswornstatements.15
OnFebruary27,1997,Evelyn,assistedbyLorna,filedacriminalcomplaintforrape16 against appellant before
theMunicipalTrialCourtofBulan,Sorsogon,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.6272.
InthemeantimeoronMay7,1997,Evelyngavebirthtoagirl,JoanaCanchela,atGuruyan,Juban,Sorsogon.17
Appellant, on being confronted with the accusation, simply said that it is not true "[b]ecause her mind is not
normal,"18shehaving"mentionedmanyothernamesofmenwhoha[d]sexualintercoursewithher."19
Findingfortheprosecution,thetrialcourt,bythepresentappealedDecision,convictedappellantascharged.The
dispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,accusedSalvadorGolimlimhavingbeenfoundguiltyofthecrimeof
RAPE (Art. 335 R.P.C. as amended by RA 7659) beyond reasonable doubt is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to indemnify the offended party Evelyn Canchela in the
amountofP50,000.00asindemnityandanotherP50,000.00asmoraldamage[s],andtopaythecosts.
SOORDERED.20
Hence,thepresentappeal,appellantassigningtothetrialcourtthefollowingerrors:
I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
CONTRADICTORYAND IMPLAUSIBLE TESTIMONY OF EVELYN CANCHELA,A MENTAL RETARDATE,
[AND]
II.THECOURTAQUOGRAVELYERREDINFINDINGTHATTHEGUILTOFTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANT
FORTHECRIMECHARGEDHASBEENPROVENBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.21
Appellant argues that Evelyns testimony is not categorical and is replete with contradictions, thus engendering
gravedoubtsastohiscriminalculpability.
In giving credence to Evelyns testimony and finding against appellant, the trial court made the following
observations,quotedverbatim:
1) Despite her weak and dull mental state the victim was consistent in her claim that her Papay Badong
(accused Salvador Golimlim) had carnal knowledge of her and was the author of her pregnancy, and
nobody else (See: For comparison her Sworn Statement on p. 3/Record her narration in the Psychiatric
Reportonpp.47&48/RecordtheTSNsofhertestimonyinopencourt)
2)SheremainsconsistentthatherPapayBadongrapedheronlyonce
3)Thatthecontradictorystatementsshemadeinopencourtrelativetothedetailsofhowshewasraped,
althoughwouldseemderogatorytohercredibilityandreliabilityasawitnessundernormalconditions,were
amplyexplainedbythepsychiatristwhoexaminedherandsupportedbyherfindings(See:ExhibitsFtoF
2)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_145225_2004.html

2/8

4/20/2016

G.R.No.145225

4) Despite her claim that several persons laid on top of her (which is still subject to question considering
thatthevictimcouldnotelaborateonitsmeaning),thelucidfactremainsthatsheneverpointedtoanybody
else as the author of her pregnancy, but her Papay Badong. Which only shows that the trauma that was
created in her mind by the incident has remained printed in her memory despite her weak mental state.
Furthermore,grantingforthesakeofargumentthatothermenalsolaidontopofher,thisdoesnotdeviate
fromthefactthatherPapayBadong(theaccused)hadsexualintercoursewithher.22
The trial judges assessment of the credibility of witnesses testimonies is, as has repeatedly been held by this
Court,accordedgreatrespectonappealintheabsenceofgraveabuseofdiscretiononitspart,ithavinghadthe
advantageofactuallyexaminingbothrealandtestimonialevidenceincludingthedemeanorofthewitnesses.23
In the present case, no cogent reason can be appreciated to warrant a departure from the findings of the trial
courtwithrespecttotheassessmentofEvelynstestimony.
ThatEvelynisamentalretardatedoesnotdisqualifyherasawitnessnorrenderhertestimonybereftoftruth.
Sections20and21ofRule130oftheRevisedRulesofCourtprovide:
SEC.20.Witnessestheirqualifications. Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons
whocanperceive,andperceiving,canmakeknowntheirperceptiontoothers,maybewitnesses.
xxx
SEC.21.Disqualificationbyreasonofmentalincapacityorimmaturity.Thefollowingpersonscannotbe
witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are
incapableofintelligentlymakingknowntheirperceptiontoothers
(b)Childrenwhosementalmaturityissuchastorenderthemincapableofperceivingthefactsrespecting
whichtheyareexaminedandofrelatingthemtruthfully.
InPeoplev.Trelles,24 where the trial court relied heavily on the therein mentally retarded private complainants
testimonyirregardlessofher"monosyllabicresponsesandvacillationsbetweenlucidityandambiguity,"thisCourt
held:
Amentalretardateorafeeblemindedpersonisnot, perse,disqualifiedfrombeingawitness,hermental
conditionnotbeingavitiationofhercredibility.Itisnowuniversallyacceptedthatintellectualweakness,no
matterwhatformitassumes,isnotavalidobjectiontothecompetencyofawitnesssolongasthelatter
canstillgiveafairlyintelligentandreasonablenarrativeofthemattertestifiedto.25
Itcannotthenbegainsaidthatamentalretardatecanbeawitness,dependingonhisorherabilitytorelatewhat
heorsheknows.26Ifhisorhertestimonyiscoherent,thesameisadmissibleincourt.27
Tobesure,modernrulesonevidencehavedowngradedmentalincapacityasagroundtodisqualifyawitness.As
observed by McCormick, the remedy of excluding such a witness who may be the only person available who
knowsthefacts,seemsineptandprimitive.Ourrulesfollowthemoderntrendofevidence.28
Thus,inalonglineofcases,29thisCourthasupheldtheconvictionoftheaccusedbasedmainlyonstatements
givenincourtbythevictimwhowasamentalretardate.
Fromameticulousscrutinyoftherecordsofthiscase,thereisnoreasontodoubtEvelynscredibility.Tobesure,
hertestimonyisnotwithoutdiscrepancies,givenofcourseherfeeblemindedness.
By the account of Dr. Chona CuyosBelmonte, Medical Specialist II at the Psychiatric Department of the Bicol
MedicalCenter,whoexaminedEvelyn,althoughEvelynwassufferingfrommoderatementalretardationwithan
IQof46,30sheiscapableofperceivingandrelatingeventswhichhappenedtoher.Thusthedoctortestified:
Q:Sodoyoutrytoimpressthatalthoughsheanswersingeneraltermsitdoesnotnecessarilymeanthat
shemightbeinventinganswersonlythatshecouldnotgotothespecificdetailsbecauseofdullness?
A:IdontthinkshewasinventingheranswerbecauseIconductedmentalstatusexaminationforthree(3)
timesandItriedtoseetheconsistencyinthenarrationbutverypoor(sic)ingivingdetails.
xxx
Q:Mayweknowwhatsherelatedtoyou?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_145225_2004.html

3/8

4/20/2016

G.R.No.145225

A:SherelatedtomethatshewasrapedbyheruncleTatayBadong.Whatshementionedwasthat,andI
quote: hinila ang panty ko, pinasok ang pisot at bayag niya sa pipi ko. She would laugh inappropriately
aftertellingmethatparticularincident.Ialsotriedtoaskherregardingthedates,thetimeoftheincident,
but she could not really. I tried to elicit those important things, but the patient had a hard time
rememberingthosedates.
Q:Butconsideringthatyouhaveevaluatedhermentally,gaveherI.Q.test,inyourhonestopinion,doyou
believethatthisnarrationbythepatienttoyouabouttherapeisreliable?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Whydoyouconsiderthatreliable?
A:Beinga(sic)moderatelyretarded,Ihavenoticedthespontaneityofheranswersduringthetimeofthe
testing.ShewasnotevenhesitatingwhenshetoldmeshewasrapedonceathomebyherTatayBadong
and she was laughing when she told me about how it was done on (sic) her. So, although she may be
inappropriatebut(sic)shewasspontaneous,shewasconsistent.
Q:Now,IwouldliketorelatetoyouanincidentthathappenedinthisCourtforyoutogiveusyourexpert
opinion. I tried to present the victim in this case to testify. While she testified that she was raped by her
uncle Badong, when asked about the details, thereof, she would not make (sic) the detail. She only
answeredwala(no).Iaskthisquestionbecausesomehowthisseemsrelatedtoyourpreviousevaluation
thatwhileshegaveananswer,shegavenodetail.Now,IwasthinkingbecauseIamamanandIwasthe
oneaskingandtheJudgeisamanalso.Andwhilethemotherwouldsaythatshewouldrelatetoherand
sherelatedtoyou,canyouexplaintouswhywhenshewaspresentedincourtthatoccurrence,thatevent
happened?
A:Therearealotofpossibleanswerstothatquestionone,isthecourtsatmosphereitself.Thismayhave
brought a little anxiety on the part of the patient and this inhibits her from relating some of the details
relativetotheincidentinquestion.WhenIconductedmyinterviewwiththepatient,therewereonlytwo(2)
ofusintheroom.Inormallydonotaskthisquestionduringthefirstsessionwiththepatientbecausethese
areemotionallyleadingquestions,andIdonotexpectthepatienttobeverytrusting.So,Iusuallyaskthis
typeofquestionsduringthelaterpartofmyexaminationtomakeherrelaxduringmyevaluation.Sointhis
way,shewillbemorecooperativewithme.Idontthinkthatthiskindofatmospherewithinthecourtroom
withsomepeoplearound,thiscouldhaveinhibitedthepatientfromansweringquestions.
xxx
Q:Whatifthevictimisbeingcoachedorledbysomeoneelse,willshebeabletoanswerthequestions?
A:Yes, she may be able to answer the questions, but you would notice the inconsistency of the answers
becausewhatwenormallydoisthatwepresentthequestionsindifferentways,andweexpectthesame
answer.Thisishowwetrytoevaluatethepatient.Iftheperson,especiallyaretarded,isbeingcoachedby
somebody,theanswerswillnolongerbeconsistent.
Q:Youalsomentionedawhileagothattheanswersgivenbythepatient,takenallinall,wereconsistent?
A:Yes,sir.31(Underscoringsupplied)
AsnotedintheabovequotedtestimonyofDr.Belmonte,Evelyncouldgivespontaneousandconsistentanswers
to the same but differently framed questions under conditions which do not inhibit her from answering. It could
have been in this light that Evelyn was able to relate in court, upon examination by a female government
prosecutorandtheexclusionofthepublicfromtheproceedings,onDr.Belmontessuggestion,32how,asquoted
below,shewasrapedandthatitwasappellantwhodidit:
Q:LornaHacherotestifiedbeforethisCourtthatyougavebirthtoababygirlnamedJohanna,isthistrue?
A:(Thewitnessnods,yes.)
xxx
Q:WhoisthefatherofJohanna?
A:PapayBadong
Q:WhoisthisPapayBadongthatyouarereferringto?
A:ThehusbandofMamayBita.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_145225_2004.html

4/8

4/20/2016

G.R.No.145225

Q:Ishehereincourt?
A:Heishere.
Q:Pleaselookaroundandpointhimtous.
A: (The witness pointing to the lone man sitting in the first row of the gallery wearing a regular prison
orangetshirtwhogavehisnameasSalvadorGolimlimwhenasked.)
Q:WhywereyouabletosaythatitisPapayBadongwhoisthefatherofyourchildJohanna?
A:BecausethenIwasleftatMamayBitashouse,althoughIamnottherenow.
Q:AndthathousewhereyouwereleftisalsothehouseofyourPapayBadong?
A:Yesmaam.
Q:WhatdidSalvadorGolimlimoryourPapayBadongdotoyouthatswhyyouwereabletosaythatheis
thefatherofyourchild?
A:Iwasundressedbyhim.
xxx
Q:Whatdidyoudoafteryouwereundressed?
A:Iwasscoldedbythewife,MamayBita.
Q: I am referring to that very moment when you were undressed. Immediately after your Papay Badong
undressedyou,whatdidyoudo?
xxx
A:Helaidontopofme.
Q:Whatwasyourpositionwhenhelaidontopofyou?
A:Iwaslyingdown.
Q:Thenafterhewentontopofyou,whatdidhedothere?
A:Hemade(sic)sexualintercoursewithme.
Q:Whenyousaidhehada(sic)sexualintercoursewithyou,whatdidhedoexactly?
A:Hekissedme.
Q:Where?
A:Onthecheeks(witnessmotioningindicatinghercheeks).
Q:Whatelsedidhedo?PleasedescribebeforethisHonorableCourtthesexualintercoursewhichyouare
referringtowhichtheaccuseddidtoyou.
A:Initoyandhesleptafterthat.
(toCourt)
Nevertheless,maywerequestthatthelocaltermforsexualintercourse,thewordInitoy which was used
bythewitnessbeputontherecord,andwerequestjudicialnoticeofthefactthatinitoyisthelocalterm
forsexualintercourse.
xxx
Q:WhatdidyoufeelwhenyourPapayBadonghadsexualintercoursewithyou?
A:Ifeltaknifeitwaslikeaknife.
Q:Wheredidyoufeelthatknife?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_145225_2004.html

5/8

4/20/2016

G.R.No.145225

A:Iforgot.
Q:WhydidyouallowyourPapayBadongtohavesexualintercoursewithyou?
A:Iwillnotconsenttoit.
xxx
Q:Didyoulikewhathedidtoyou?
A:Idonotwantit.
Q:Butwhydidithappen?
A:Iwasforcedto.
xxx
Q:DidyoufeelanythingwhenheinsertedintoyourvaginawhenyourPapayBadonglaidontopofyou?
A:Hissexualorgan/penis.
Q:HowdidyouknowthatitwasthepenisofyourPapayBadongthatwasenteredintoyourvagina?
A:Itwasputontopofme.
Q:Diditenteryourvagina?
A:Yes,YourHonor.
xxx
Q:MadamWitness,isittruethatyourPapayBadonginsertedhispenisintoyourvaginaorsexualorgan
duringthattimethathewasontopofyou?
A:(Thewitnessnods,yes.)33(Underscoringsupplied)
Appellants bare denial is not only an inherently weak defense. It is not supported by clear and convincing
evidence. It cannot thus prevail over the positive declaration of Evelyn who convincingly identified him as her
rapist.34
InconvictingappellantunderArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRepublicAct7659(thelawin
force when the crime was committed in 1996), the trial court did not specify under which mode the crime was
committed.Underthesaidarticle,rapeiscommittedthus:
ART.335.Whenandhowrapeiscommitted.Rapeiscommittedbyhavingcarnalknowledgeofawoman
underanyofthefollowingcircumstances.
1.Byusingforceorintimidation
2.Whenthewomanisdeprivedofreasonorotherwiseunconsciousand
3.Whenthewomanisundertwelveyearsofageorisdemented.
Thecrimeofrapeshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetua.
Wheneverthecrimeofrapeiscommittedwiththeuseofadeadlyweaponorbytwoormorepersons,the
penaltyshallbereclusionperpetuaordeath.
xxx
Itissettledthatsexualintercoursewithawomanwhoisamentalretardateconstitutesstatutoryrapewhichdoes
not require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim for
conviction.35ThefactofEvelynsmentalretardationwasnot,however,allegedintheInformationand,therefore,
cannotbethebasisforconviction.Suchnotwithstanding,thatforceandintimidationattendedthecommissionof
thecrime,themodeofcommissionallegedintheInformation,wasadequatelyproven.Itbearsstatinghereinthat
thementalfacultiesofaretardatebeingdifferentfromthoseofanormalperson,thedegreeofforceneededto
overwhelm him or her is less. Hence, a quantum of force which may not suffice when the victim is a normal
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_145225_2004.html

6/8

4/20/2016

G.R.No.145225

person,maybemorethanenoughwhenemployedagainstanimbecile.36
Still under the abovequoted provision of Art. 335 of the Rev ised Penal Code, when the crime of rape is
committedwiththeuseofadeadlyweapon,thepenaltyshallbereclusionperpetuatodeath.Inthecaseatbar,
however,althoughthereisadequateevidenceshowingthatappellantindeedusedforceandintimidation,thatis
notthecasewithrespecttotheuseofadeadlyweapon.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the RegionalTrial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 65 in Criminal
Case No. 241 finding appellant, Salvador Golimlim alias "Badong," GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape,
which this Court finds to have been committed under paragraph 1,Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and
holdinghimcivillyliabletherefor,isherebyAFFIRMED.
Costsagainstappellant.
SOORDERED.
Vitug,SandovalGutierrez,andCorona,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
*OnOfficialLeave.
1Rolloat3145.
2Id.at10.
3Recordsat29.
4TSN,August12,1998at12.
5TSN,October14,1998at6.
6TSN,January27,1999at9.
7Id.at6.
8Id.at8.
9Id.at10and13.
10Id.at10.
11TSN,June2,1998at7.
12Id.at8.
13TSN,August12,1998at3.
14Exhibit"E",Recordsat16.
15Exhibit"B",Recordsat12.
16Recordsat7.
17Exhibit"D",Recordsat127.
18TSN,September20,1999at4.
19Ibid.
20Rolloat45.
21Id.at80.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_145225_2004.html

7/8

4/20/2016

G.R.No.145225

22Id.at3839.
23Peoplev.DeGuzman,372SCRA95,101(2001),Peoplev.Balisnomo,265SCRA98,104(1996)

(citationsomitted).
24340SCRA652(2000).
25Id.at658(citationsomitted).
26Peoplev.DelosSantos,364SCRA142,156(2001).
27Peoplev.Lubong,332SCRA672,690(2000)(citationomitted).
28Peoplev.Espanola,271SCRA689,709(1997)(citationsomitted).
29Peoplev.Agravante,338SCRA13(2000),Peoplev.Padilla,301SCRA265(1999),Peoplev.Malapo,

294SCRA579(1998),Peoplev.Balisnomo,265SCRA98(1996),Peoplev.Gerones,193SCRA263
(1991).
30TSN,December21,1998at10.
31Id.at921.
32Id.at1314.
33TSN,January27,1999at413.
34Peoplev.DeGuzman,372SCRA95,111(2001)(citationsomitted),Peoplev.Glabo,371SCRA567,

573(2001)(citationsomitted),Peoplev.Lalingjaman,364SCRA535,546(2001)(citationsomitted),
Peoplev.Agravante,338SCRA13,20(2000).
35Peoplev.Lubong,332SCRA672,692(2000)(citationsomitted),Peoplev.Padilla,301SCRA265,273

(1999)(citationomitted).
36Peoplev.Moreno,294SCRA728,739(1998).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_145225_2004.html

8/8