REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MARINDUQUE

Fourth Judicial Region
Family Court
Branch 9
Boac

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO.43-18

-versus- -for-

JERRY M. AGUIFLOR, RAPE

Accused

JUDGMENT

Accused stands charged for Rape in the following Criminal

Information, allegedly committed as follows:

AMENDED INFORMATION

That on or about the 25th day of October

2017 at around 7:00 in the evening, more or
less, in Barangay Argao, Municipality of
Mogpog, Province of Marinduque, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused who personally knew
the mental disability of one MMM, being his
neighbor, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, be means of force,
threats, and intimidation, have carnal
knowledge upon the person of one MMM, a
mentally challenged person, without her
consent and against her will, the the damage
and prejudice of the said offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW."1

The accused was arraigned, assisted by counsel, on May 25,

2018 and pleaded not guilty.2 The Pre-Trial Conference was

1Information on Case Record, page 31.

2 Certificate of Arraignment, page 45 on Case Record.
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 2 of 13
x------------------------------------x
conducted and terminated on even date. Thereafter, the prosecution
presented the witnesses.3

Prosecution's version

On the witness stand, the first prosecution witness, Emelita

Mabuti Bacay, mother of the victim, MMM Mabuti Bacay, alleges
that on October 25, 2017 at around 6:00 in the evening, she was
trying to look for her daughter because she noticed that MMM was
not in their house. She went out of her house to find MMM, but she
failed to locate her. She came to know MMM’s presence, when she
found her sitting on their stair. She asked MMM as to where did she
go, but the latter answered her that accused, Jerry Aguiflor, bit her
nipple and lips. Hearing those words from MMM, she and her
husband asked MMM to confess as to what the accused did to her.
Surprisingly, MMM told them that accused brought her to a
grassland and there he raped her. Complainant brought her
daughter to their barangay captain, who accompanied them to the
police station.4 During cross examination, witness confirmed that
she saw the clothes of her daughter torn and full of mud.5

The second prosecution witness offended party, MMM, testified

during direct examination, that on October 25, 2017, accused Jerry
Aguiflor asked her to join him to drink his tuba and to catch fish by
the sea. She acceded in joining the accused in drinking his tuba
and thereafter they went to the sea to catch fish, but only caught
two crabs instead.6 Thereafter, the accused brought her to a
grassland. There, while she was still wearing her clothes, the
accused bit her nipple and lips. Then he tore her dress and removed
her bra and panty and thereafter inserted his penis into her
vagina7. Her narration of the rape incident during direct
examination was very clear, to wit:

Prosecutor Rivamonte: What did he do next when Jerry

Already removed his shorts and
Brief and according to you he
showed to you his penis?
MMM: He showed me his penis and he
inserted his penis.
Prosecutor Rivamonte: Where did he insert his penis?
3 Order dated May 25, 2018, page 45 on Case Record.
4 TSN dated June 19, 2018, pages 50-63 on Case Record.
5 TSN dated June 19, 2018, pages 61 and 62 on Case Record.
6 TSN dated August 14, 2018, page 98 on Case Record.
7 TSN dated August 14, 2018, page 99-101 on Case Record.
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 3 of 13
x------------------------------------x
MMM:
Prosecutor Rivamonte:
MMM:
Prosecutor Rivamonte:
MMM:
Prosecutor Rivamonte:
MMM:
“Sa puki ko.”
Why did you know Ms. Witness
That his penis was already inserted
to your vagina?
He showed it to me.
And then?
The tip of his penis was inside my
vagina.
Did you feel his penis inside you
vagina?
Yes sir, I felt it.8

After the accused was done with her, he asked her to go home
and warned her not to tell the incident to anybody otherwise he will
hack her. When she got home, she told her sister, Marilou, what the
accused did to her. She was afraid to tell the incident to her mother
because she will get mad at her.9

The third prosecution witness, Dr. Jonani L. Sajo, Psychiatrist,

designated as Medical Specialist I at Dr. Damian Provincial
Hospital, Boac, Marinduque, testified that he conducted a
psychological examination on MMM on November 6, 2017. Upon
examining MMM, he found that MMM is suffering from intellectual
disability. The same was reduced into writing on the same date and
the victim was referred to National Center for Mental Health
(NCMH) for mental aging.10 The prosecution and defense stipulated
on his testimony that Dr. Sajo is an expert medical doctor in the
field of Psychiatry.11

The fourth prosecution witness, Dr. Edzel L. Muhi, Municipal

Health Officer, Municipal Health Office of Mogpog, Marinduque,
testified that on October 27, 2018, he examined the victim and
found hymenal lacerations which may be caused by several penile
penetrations and described that some of the lacerations were
already healed while others were in the process of healing.12 Both
the prosecution and defense stipulated on the due execution of the
Medico-Legal Certificate of the victim with qualification that Dr.
Muhi has no personal knowledge as to the alleged rape incident.13

8 TSN dated August 14, 2018, pages 101-102 on Case Record.

9 TSN dated August 14, 2018, page 103-104 on Case Record.
10 TSN dated July 17, 2018, pages 80-84 on Case Record.
11 TSN dated July 17, 2018, pages 78 on Case Record.
12 TSN dated August 23, 2018, pages 130-132 on Case Record.
13 TSN dated August 23, 2018, pages 127-128 on Case Record.
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 4 of 13
x------------------------------------x
Prosecution witness, Dr. Herc B. Sabas, Psychologist II,
National Center for Mental Health, who examined MMM on June
29, 2018,14 submitted a Manifestation15 that he received a
Subpoena in relation to this case, but requested the indulgence of
the court as he cannot attend the hearing due to budgetary
constraint. Nevertheless, both parties stipulated on the existence of
the Psychological Report issued by Dr. Sabas which states as
follows:

Evaluation: Verbal Scale - 46

Performance Scale - 51
Full Scale IQ - 45
Classification - Moderate Mental Retardation

 Mental age is assessed at 6 years and 8 months.

Defense version

For its part, the defense presented the accused who

categorically denied having raped MMM. He narrated that although
he was at Marinduque on October 25, 2018, he went to the milling
station near the town proper of Mogpog at around 8:00 in the
morning. He returned to Brgy. Argao at around 1:00 in the
afternoon.16 According to the accused, he did not leave his house
from 5:00 in the afternoon onwards. He was with his wife
Magdalena and his children Aprilyn and Giscle. He averred that he
does not know any reason why the family of MMM filed such a
serious charge against him.17 He admitted though that he left
Mogpog the day after the alleged incident occurred.

The testimony of the accused was corroborated by the

testimonies of defense witnesses Magdalena Aguiflor18 and Aprilyn
Aguiflor19, who both testified that they were watching television with
the accused on the same day from 5:00 in the afternoon until they
all went to sleep at around 10:00 in the evening. They further
narrated that the accused usually stays at home every night and
that he did not leave their house in the evening of October 25,
2017.

14 TSN dated August 23, 2018, pages 132-133 on Case Record.

15 Page 70 on Case Record.
16 TSN dated October 23, 2018, page 150 on Case Record.
17 TSN dated October 23, 2018, pages 147-149 on Case Record.
18 TSN dated October 30, 2018, page 160 on Case Record.
19 TSN dated November 6, 2018, pages 174-176 and 185 on Case Record.
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 5 of 13
x------------------------------------x
Issue

Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt

of the crime Rape.

RULING of the COURT

The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with

a woman against her will or without her consent.20 Article 266-A,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 8353, states that:

ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is

committed.

1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman

under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or

otherwise unconscious;

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave

abuse of authority; and

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12)

years of age or is demented, even though none of
the circumstances mentioned above be present.

On the basis thereof, 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.21

In relation to the requirement that the victim should be under

12 years of age, it is the victim's mental age that is determinative of
her capacity to give consent.

In People v. Quintos y Badilla,22 the Supreme Court

emphasized that the conditions under Article 266-A should be

20 People v. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 132125-26, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 450, 459.
21 Id.
22 People v. Enrique Quintos y Badilla, G. R. No. 199402, Nov. 12, 2014.
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 6 of 13
x------------------------------------x
construed in the light of one's capacity to give consent. The
Supreme Court also clarified that one's capacity to give consent
depends upon his or her mental age and not on his or her
chronological age.

Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a

normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving
consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age
of 7. Both are considered incapable of giving rational consent
because both are not yet considered to have reached the level of
maturity that gives them the capability to make rational decisions,
especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making is a
function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether
to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is
determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her
mental age. Therefore, in determining whether a person is ''twelve
(12) years of age" under Article 266-A (1) (d), the interpretation
should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the
child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the
mental age if intellectual disability is established.23

Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental

retardation is rape since she is incapable of giving consent to a
sexual act. Under these circumstances, all that needs to be proved
for a successful prosecution are the facts of sexual congress
between the rapist and his victim, and the latter’s mental
retardation.24

In People v. Dalandas,25 citing People v. Dumanon,26 no less

than the Supreme Court 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.

In the present case, both clinical and testimonial evidence

were presented by the prosecution to prove that MMM is a mental
retardate. The prosecution presented the psychological report made
by the psychologist, who conducted a series of psychological tests
on the victim to ascertain her mental condition. Based on such
series of psychological tests performed on MMM, she was found to
be suffering from Moderate Mental Retardation with Full Scale I.Q.
of 45 and a mental age equivalent to that of a six-year-and-eight-
23 People v. Niebres, citing People vs. Quintas, G. R. No. 230975, December 4, 2017.
24 People v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 363, 376.
25 People v. Dalandas, 442 Phil. 688 (2002)
26 People vs. Dumanon, 401 Phil. 658 (2000)
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 7 of 13
x------------------------------------x
month-old child. The testimony given by Dr. Sajo likewise affirmed
the fact that MMM is, indeed, a mental retardate. He testified that
when he conducted clinical interview to the victim, her responses
were more like of a child. Based on his assessment, MMM is
suffering from intellectual disability which according to him is a
new term used for mental retardation.27 Hence, he recommended
MMM to undergo mental aging at the NCMH. Furthermore, the
Court observed the demeanor of the offended party when she
testified on the witness stand, and finds that she manifest a
behavior of mentally challenged person.

With the foregoing pieces of evidence offered by the

prosecution, it is beyond cavil that they were able to prove that
MMM is a mental retardate. Thus, this Court finds that MMM is
unquestionably a mental retardate.

As it is settled that the victim in the present case is a mental

retardate, the only thing that must be established is the fact of
sexual congress between the accused, Jerry Aguiflor, and the
victim.

In the case at bar, the accused denied having raped the victim.
In an attempt to exonerate himself, the accused interposed the
defense of alibi. However his alibi cannot be given merit as it was
the accused himself who admitted that he was present in the place
and time the rape incident transpired. Such alibi cannot overcome
the categorical testimony of MMM.

Moreover, due to their relationship with the accused, it is

manifest that the testimony of Magdalena and Aprilyn is tainted
with bias. Other than the bare self serving testimony of the accused
and his bias witnesses, the defense failed to produce any competent
evidence which is more convincing to this Court as worthy of belief
than that which is offered by the prosecution.

Judicial experience has taught us that denial like alibi is the

common defenses in rape cases. Denial is an intrinsically weak
defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-
culpability to merit credibility. It is a negative self-serving assertion
that deserves no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence.28 The barefaced denial of the charge by the
accused even if his family members had testified in his favor cannot

27 TSN dated July 17, 2018, page 84 on Case Record.

28 People v. Gabriel, G. R. No. 213390, March 15, 2017.
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 8 of 13
x------------------------------------x
prevail over the positive and forthright identification of him as the
perpetrator of the dastardly act.

As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one

hand and a bare denial on the other, the former must prevail.
Indeed, positive identification of the victim, when categorical and
consistent and without any ill motive prevails over alibi and
denial.29

In this case, MMM positively identified the accused as the

person who raped her. This can be proven by the following
testimony of the victim:

Prosecutor Rivamonte: What did he do next when Jerry

Already removed his shorts and
Brief and according to you he
showed to you his penis?
MMM: He showed me his penis and he
inserted his penis.
Prosecutor Rivamonte: Where did he insert his penis?
MMM: “Sa puki ko.”
Prosecutor Rivamonte: Why did you know Ms. Witness
That his penis was already inserted
to your vagina?
MMM: He showed it to me.
Prosecutor Rivamonte: And then?
MMM: The tip of his penis was inside my
vagina.
Prosecutor Rivamonte: Did you feel his penis inside you
vagina?
MMM: Yes sir, I felt it.30

Furthermore, the accused admitted that he did not know any

reason why MMM or her family would charge him with such a grave
offense.31 He was even a relative of MMM. Absent any ill motive on
the part of the victim or her family, Jerry Aguiflor’s defense of denial
cannot prevail over MMM 's positive identification of the accused.

The rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the

woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.32
Also, the rupture of the hymen or vaginal laceration is not
29 People v. Tagana, 468 Phil. 784, 807 (2004).
30 TSN dated August 14, 2018 pages 101-102 on Case Record.
31 TSN dated October 23, 2018 page 149 and 152 on Case Record.
32 People v. Dimacuha, 467 Phil. 342, 350 (2004).
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 9 of 13
x------------------------------------x
necessary for rape to be consummated.33 It is settled that a mere
touching, no matter how slight, of the labia or lips of the female
organ by the male genitalia even without rapture or laceration of the
hymen is sufficient to consummate rape. Full penetration is not
required, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of
the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is
sufficient. In proving sexual intercourse, it is enough that there was
the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex
organ.34

Accordingly, a medical examination is not indispensable to the

prosecution of rape. Insofar as the evidentiary weight of the medical
examination is concerned, the Supreme Court ruled that a medical
examination of the victim, as well as a medical certificate, is merely
corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for
conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of
private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and
credible, and this we find here to be the case.35

In the instant case, the medical findings revealed that the

victim has lacerated wound on her left nipple, hymenal lacerations
in different positions and rounded fourchette.36 The Medico Legal
Officer of Mogpog who conducted the medical examination on the
victim described that some of the lacerations were already healed
which may only be noted after 5 to 7 days while the other
lacerations which may be present 2 to 3 days were already in the
healing process. Further, the Medico Legal Officer clearly explained
that for a woman who has not encountered any sexual intercourse,
the fourchette is generally diamond shape. But after penile
penetration, the fourchette becomes rounded as in this case.37

Notably, the medical findings were consistent with the

testimony of the victim, to wit:

Prosecutor Rivamonte : Are you telling to us Ms. Witness,

that the accused in this case, Jerry
M. Aguiflor, inserted his penis to
you vagina?
MMM : Yes sir, that’s the truth.38

33 People v. Lerio, 381 Phil. 80, 87 (2000).

34 People v. Pascua, G.R. No. 151858, 27 November 2003, 416 SCRA 548, 553-554
35 People v. Lerio, supra note 46 at 88.
36 Medico Legal Certificate, page 14 on Case Record.
37 TSN dated August 23, 2018, page 129 on Case Record.
38 TSN dated August 14, 2018, page 97 on Case Record.
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 10 of 13
x------------------------------------x
xxx

Prosecutor Rivamonte : What else did he do after he bit

your upper lip?
MMM : He bit also my nipples.39

The testimonial evidence of the victim is bolstered by the

presence of the lacerations described in the Medico Legal
Certificate. Together, they produce a moral conviction that accused
committed the crimes charged.

More importantly, the victim positively identified the accused

as her assailant. That she had sexual intercourse with him was
sufficiently established by her testimony before this court. The
victim, though a mental retardate, was able to describe how she
was ravished by the accused.

It bears emphasis that the competence and credibility of

mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by
the Supreme Court where it was shown that they could
communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather than
undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even
lends greater credence to her testimony, as someone feeble-minded
and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the
details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the
hands of the accused.40 Besides, having the mental age level of a
six-year-and-eight-month-old normal child would even bolster her
credibility as a witness, considering that a victim at such tender age
would not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and
ravished unless that was the truth. For no woman, especially one of
tender age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter
expose herself to a public trial, if she were not motivated solely by
the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished to avenge
her honor and to condemn a grave injustice to her.41

Given the foregoing, the prosecution's evidence has clearly

established beyond doubt that MMM was mentally retarded because
the results of the mental and the psychological tests showed that
she had a mental age equivalent to that of a six-year-and-six-
month-old child. The Supreme Court has held in a long line of cases

39 TSN dated August 14, 2018, page 100 on Case Record.

40 People v. Toralba, 414 Phil. 793, 800 (2001).
41 People v. Agravante, 392 Phil. 543, 551 (2000).
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 11 of 13
x------------------------------------x
that if the mental age of a woman above twelve years is that of a
child below twelve years, even if she voluntarily submitted to the
bestial desires of the accused, or even absent the circumstances of
force or intimidation or the fact that the victim was deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, the accused would still be liable
for rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. The rationale,
therefore, is that if sexual intercourse with a victim under twelve
years of age is rape, then it should follow that carnal knowledge of a
woman whose mental age is that of a child below twelve years
would also constitute rape.42

Finally, the testimony of the accused that he was not aware of

the victim's mental retardation cannot hold water. Such knowledge
of the victim's mental retardation was sufficiently proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. A cursory evaluation of the
transcripts shows that the accused was not just a neighbor but also
a relative of MMM. The accused even admitted that he was with the
parents of the victim, whom he has known for a long time,
harvesting palay. He also disclosed that he has known the victim
since childhood.

Considering the demeanor and conduct of the offended party

during the course of her testimony, this Court noted the apparent
and noticeable fact of her mental condition. Her mental retardation
was clearly apparent and noticeable to people who had interactions
with her like herein accused including his family. The accused
cannot therefore feign ignorance as regards MMM’s mental
condition.

All told, the prosecution was able to prove that the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article
266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8353. Taking into consideration the presence of
the special qualifying circumstance of the accused’s knowledge of
the victim's mental retardation,43 the same being properly alleged in
the Information charging the accused of the crime of rape and
proven during trial, this Court has no option but to impose on the
accused the supreme penalty of death.

With the enactment, however, of Republic Act No. 9346,

entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the

42 People v. Itdang, 397 Phil. 692, 704 (2000).

43 Art. 266-B (10) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 12 of 13
x------------------------------------x
Philippines", the imposition of the death penalty has been
prohibited. Accordingly, the proper penalty to be imposed on the
accused as provided in Section 2, paragraph (a) of said law, is
reclusion perpetua. The applicability of R.A. No. 9346 is
undeniable in view of the principle in criminal law that favorabilia
sunt amplianda, odiosa restringenda. Penal laws which are
favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.

In addition, accused is not eligible for parole pursuant to

Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346, which states:

SECTION 3. Persons convicted with reclusion

perpetua, or those whose sentences will be
reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this
Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act
No. 4103, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

Moral damages are awarded without need of proof for mental,

physical and psychological suffering undeniably sustained by a
rape victim.44

In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the amounts of P100,000

as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00
as exemplary damages are hereby awarded.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby finds

accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Rape as
defined in Article 266-A paragraph(d) of the Revised Penal Code and
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without
eligibility for parole. He is ordered to pay the victim civil
indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00, moral damages in the
amount of P100,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of
P100,000.00, all with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum
from the date of finality of this judgment until paid.

SO ORDERED.

Boac, Marinduque, January 5, 2019.

People vs. Pandapatan, , 521 SCRA 304, 326).

44
Decision dated January 2018
Crim. Case No. 43-18
P.P. v. Jerry M. Aguiflor
For: RAPE
Page 13 of 13
x------------------------------------x

EUGENE RICARDO A. PARRONE

Assisting Judge
ERAP/MRCV
Copy furnished

PROS. RYAN RIVAMONTE ATTY. CARLO D. RODAS

Provincial Prosecutor’s Office Counsel of the Accused

MICHELLE M. BACAY JERRY M AGUIFLOR

Private Complainant Accused