Professional Documents
Culture Documents
________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
pulled the complainant inside the store and said, ÂCome. let us have
sexual intercourse,Ê to which Estelita replied, ÂI do not like,Ê and 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
struggled to free herself and cried. The accused held a bolo
People vs. Rafanan, Jr.
measuring 1–1/2 feet including the handle which he pointed to the
throat of the complainant threatening her with said bolo should she
„Assignment of Errors
resist. Then, he forced her to lie down on a bamboo bed, removed
her pants and after unfastening the zipper of his own pants, went 1. The lower court erred in basing its decision of conviction of
on top of the complainant and succeeded having carnal knowledge appellant solely on the testimony of the complainant and
of her inspite of her resistance and struggle. After the sexual her mother.
intercourse, the accused cautioned the complainant not to report
2. The lower court erred in considering the hearsay evidence
the matter to her mother or to anybody in the house, otherwise he
for the prosecution, ÂExhibits B and C'.
would kill her.
3. The lower court erred in not believing the testimony of the
Because of fear, the complainant did not immediately report the
expert witnesses, as to the mental condition of the accused-
matter and did not leave the house of the accused that same
appellant at the time of the alleged commission of the crime
evening. ln fact, she slept in the house of the accused that evening
of rape.
and the following morning she scrubbed the floor and did her daily
routine work in the house. She only left the house in the evening of 4. The lower court erred in convicting appellant who at the
2
March 17, 1976. time of the alleged rape was suffering from insanity."
Somehow, in the evening of March 17, 1976, the family of the
accused learned what happened the night before in the store Appellant first assails the credibility of complainant as well
between Policarpio and Estelita and a quarrel ensued among them as of her mother whose testimonies he contends are
prompting Estelita Ronaya to go back to her house. When EstelitaÊs contradictory. It is claimed by appellant that the testimony
mother confronted her and asked her why she went home that of complainant on direct examination that she immediately
evening, the complainant could not answer but cried and cried. It went home after the rape incident, is at variance with her
was only the following morning on March 18, 1976 that the testimony on cross examination to the effect that she had
stayed in the house of appellant until the following day. A He got a knife and pointed it at my throat so I was
Complainant, in saying that she left the house of appellant frightened and he could do what he wanted to do. He
by herself, is also alleged to have contradicted her mother was able to do what he wanted to do.
who stated that she (the mother) went to the store in the Q This ÂkutsilyoÊ you were referring to or knife, how big is
evening of 17 March 1979 and brought Estelita home. that knife? Will you please demonstrate, if any?
The apparently inconsistent statements made by
A This length, sir. (Which parties agreed to be about one
complainant were clarified by her on cross examination. In
and one-half [1–1/2] feet long.)
any case, the inconsistencies related to minor and
inconsequential details which do not touch upon the xxx xxx xxx
manner in which the crime had been committed and Fiscal Guillermo:
therefore did3 not in any way impair the credibility of the
Q Now, you said that the accused was able to have sexual
complainant.
intercourse with you after he placed the bolo or that
The commission of the crime was not seriously disputed knife [at] your throat. Now, will you please tell the
by appellant. The testimony of complainant in this respect court what did the accused do immediately after
is clear and convincing: placing that bolo at your throat and before having
sexual intercourse with you?
„Fiscal Guillermo:
A He had sexual intercourse with me.
Q Now, we go back to that time when according to you the
accused pulled you from the door and brought you Q What was your wearing apparel that evening?
inside the store after you helped him closed the store. A I was wearing pants, sir.
Now, after
Q Aside from the pants, do you have any underwear?
A Yes, sir, I have a panty.
________________
Q Now, before the accused have sexual intercourse with
2 Brief for the Accused-Appellant, p. 12. you what, if any, did he do with respect to your pants
3 People vs. Veloso, 148 SCRA 60 (1987); People vs. Bautista, 147 and your panty?
SCRA 500 (1987); People vs. Polo, 147 SCRA 551 (1987),
A He removed them, sir.
69 Q Now, while he was removing your pants and your panty
what, if any, did you do?
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 69 A I continued to struggle so that he could not remove my
pants but he was stronger thatÊs why he succeeded.
People vs. Rafanan, Jr.
Q Now, after he had removed your panty and your pants
or pantsuit what else happened?
the accused pulled you from the door and brought you
inside the store what happened then? A He went on top of me, sir.
A ÂYou come and we will have sexual intercourse/ he said. Q At the time what was the accused wearing by way of
apparel?
Q And what did you say?
A He was wearing pants.
A ÂI do not like,Ê I said.
Q And what did you do, if any, when you said you do not :
like to have sexual intercourse with him?
A I struggled and cried. 70
Q Now, you said that you struggled. What happened then A He told me that if I told anyone what happened, he will
when you struggled against the accused when he was kill me.
on top of you? Q After that where did you go?
4
A Since he was stronger, he succeeded doing what he A I went home already, sir."
wanted to get.
xxx xxx xxx The principal submission of appellant is that he was
suffering from a metal aberration characterized as
COURT:
schizophrenia when he inflicted his violent intentions upon
Alright, what do you mean by he was able to succeed in Estelita. At the urging of his counsel, the trial court
getting what he wanted to get? suspended the trial and ordered appellant confined at the
Fiscal Guillermo: National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong for observation
Considering the condition of the witness, your honor, and treatment. In the meantime, the case was archived.
with tears, may we just be allowed to ask a leading Appellant was admitted into the hospital on 29 December
question which is a follow-up question? 1976 and stayed there until 26 June 1978.
During his confinement, the hospital prepared four (4)
Witness: clinical reports on the mental and physical condition of the
A He inserted his private part inside my vagina. appellant, all signed by Dr. Simplicio N. Masikip and Dr,
Fiscal Guillermo: Arturo E. Nerit, physician-in-charge and chief, Forensic
Psychiatry Service, respectively.
Q Now, when he inserted his private part inside your In the first report dated 27 January 1977, the following
vagina what did you feel, if any? observations concerning appellantÊs mental condition were
A I felt something that came out from his inside. set forth:
Q Now, how long, if you remember, did the accused have „On admission he was sluggish in movements, indifferent to
his penis inside your vagina? interview, would just look up whenever questioned but refused to
A Around five minutes maybe, sir. answer.
Q After that what happened then? On subsequent examinations and observations he was carelessly
attired, with dishevelled hair, would stare vacuously through the
window, or look at people around him. He was indifferent and when manifested by periods of irritability·cursing nobody in particular,
questioned, he would just smile inappropriately. He refused to seclusive, underactive, undertalkative, retarded in his responses,
verbalize, even when persuaded, and was emotionally dull and dullness of his affect, mumbles alone by himself, preoccupied and
mentally inaccessible. He is generally seclusive, at times would lack of insight.
pace the floor, seemingly in deep thought. Later on when questioned He is not yet in a condition to stand court trial. He needs further
6
his frequent answers are ÂAywan ko, hindi ko alam.Ê His affect is hospitalization and treatment."
dull, he claimed to hear strange voices Âparang ibon, tinig ng ibon,Ê
but cannot elaborate. He is disoriented to 3 spheres and has no idea In the third report, dated 5 October 1977, appellant was
why he was brought here,‰ described as having become „better behaved, responsive‰
and „neat in person,‰ and „adequate in his emotional tone,
The report then concluded: in touch with his surroundings and x x x free from
hallucinatory experiences.‰ During the preceding period,
________________ appellant had been allowed to leave the hospital
temporarily; he stayed with a relative in Manila while
4 TSN, 5 September 1978, pp. 10–15. coming periodically to the hospital for
72
________________
and ambivalence.
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 77 ________________
Q And he was conscious of forcing the victim to lie down? A Yes, they are also capable.
Q He is capable of laying in wait in order to assault?
A Yes.
Q And would you say that condition that ability of a complete loss of intelligence which must be shown if the
person to plan a rape and to perform all the acts exempting circumstance of insanity is to be found.
preparatory to the actual intercourse could be done by The law presumes every man to be sane. A person
an insane person? accused of a crime has the 17burden of proving his
A Yes, it could be done. affirmative allegation of insanity. Here, appellant failed to
present clear and convincing evidence regarding his state
Q Now, you are talking of insanity in its broadest sense, is of mind immediately before and during the sexual assault
it not? on Estelita. It has been held that inquiry into the mental
A Yes, sir. state of the accused should relate to the period immediately 18
Q Now, is this insane person also capable of knowing what before or at the very moment the act is committed.
is right and what is wrong? Appellant rested his case on the testimonies of the two (2)
physicians (Dr. Jovellano and Dr. Nerit) which, however,
A Well, there is no weakness on that part of the
did not purport to characterize his mental condition during
individual. They may know what is wrong but yet there
that critical period of time. They did not specifically relate
is no inhibition on the individual.
to circumstances occurring on or immediately before the
Q Yes, but actually, they are mentally equipped with day of the rape. Their testimonies consisted of broad
knowledge that an act they are going to commit is statements based
wrong?
________________
79
16 TSN, 28 March 1979, pp. 74–77.
17 People vs. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, 31 July 1991; People vs. Morales,
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 79
121 SCRA 426 (1983).
People vs. Rafanan, Jr. 18 People vs. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851 (1990); People vs. Aldemita, 145
SCRA 451 (1986).
A Yeah, they are equipped but the difference is, there is
80
what we call they lost the inhibition. The reasoning is
weak and yet they understand16but the volition is [not]
there, the drive is [not] there." (Italics supplied) 80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs, Rafanan, Jr.
The above testimony, in substance, negates complete
destruction of intelligence at the time of commission of the
act charged which, in the current state of our caselaw, is on general behavioral patterns of people afflicted with
critical if the defense of insanity is to be sustained. The fact schizophrenia. Curiously, while it was Dr. Masikip who had
that appellant Rafanan threatened complainant Estelita actually observed and examined appellant during his
with death should she reveal she had been sexually confinement at the National Mental Hospital, the defense
assaulted by him, indicates, to the mind of the Court, that chose to present Dr. Nerit.
Rafanan was aware of the reprehensible moral quality of Accordingly, we must reject the insanity defense of
that assault. The defense sought to suggest, through Dr. appellant Rafanan.
JovellanoÊs last two (2) answers above, that a person In People vs. Puno (supra), the Court ruled that
suffering from schizophrenia sustains not only impairment schizophrenic reaction, although not exempting because it
of the mental faculties but also deprivation of the power of does not completely deprive the offender of the
self-control. We do not believe that Dr. JovellanoÊs consciousness of his acts, may be considered as a
testimony, by itself, sufficiently demonstrated the truth of mitigating circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised
that proposition. In any case, as already pointed out, it is Penal Code, i.e., as an illness which diminishes the exercise
of the offenderÊs will-power without, however, depriving
him of the consciousness of his acts. Appellant should have
been credited with this mitigating circumstance, although
it would not have affected the penalty imposable upon him
under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code: „in all cases in
which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty
(reclusion perpetua in this case), it shall be applied by the
courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of
the deed.‰
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED, except that the amount of moral damages is
increased to P30,000.00. Costs against appellant.
Decision affirmed.
··o0o··
81