CERTIFIE,t>/TRUE COP"Y

;,ti,'RE~ ~-;.;
l\epublic of tbe .flbilippines
$upreme ([ourt
:manila

Division Clerk of Court

Third Division

AUG 1 7 2015.

THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 200940

Present:
CARPIO, * J.,
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
PERALTA,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
PEREZ,** JJ.

- versus -

MARTIN NERIO, JR.,

Accused-Appellant.

Promulgated:
~15

x-----------------------------------------------------==---~---~~----x
DECISION

PERALTA,J.:
Brought before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 30,
2011 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00853-MIN. The CA affirmed in toto the
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bansalan, Davao del Sur,
Branch 21, dated July 22, 2010 in Criminal Case No. XXI-1016(03), finding
accused-appellant Martin Nerio, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape.
In an Information dated September 22, 2003, the Provincial
Prosecutor of Davao del Sur charged Nerio with the crime of Rape, allegedly
committed against AAA 3 as follows:
Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated July
20, 2015.

Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order
No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella
Maxino and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles; concurring; rollo, pp. 3-18.
2
Penned by Judge Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan; CA rollo, pp. 34-46.
In line with the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006,
502 SCRA 419, 426; citing Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children, Sec. 40; Rules and
Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, Rule XI, Sec. 63, otherwise known as the "Anti-

r/

Decision

G.R. No. 200940

That on or about the 26th of February 2003 at about 4:00 o'clock in

the afternoon thereof and/or subsequent thereto, at Barangay Blocon,
Municipality of Magsaysay, Province of Davao del Sur and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused after
bringing the offended party thirteen (13) year old and mentally retarded
AAA from Chapter 5, Barangay Aplaya, Digos City to his residence at
Barangay Blocon, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur, by force or intimidation did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with aforesaid offended party against her will and without her
consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Nerio, upon arraignment, entered a plea of not guilty to the cnme

charged. 5
During trial, the prosecution presented the following version of the
facts:
AAA, a child with special needs, was born on April 15, 1990 and was
adopted by Kathlene 6 and Rick. In the afternoon of February 26, 2003,
Kathlene was working in the school canteen of the Aplaya Elementary
School when she noticed that AAA, who was also enrolled at the same
school, was missing. Thinking that AAA just went to her cousin's house
near the school, Kathlene did not worry until after school hours when AAA
was still nowhere to be found. She then went to look for her child, and when
she was unsuccessful, she went to the police to have the incident placed in
the blotter.
Rick likewise looked for AAA, and he was told that his daughter was
seen boarding a minibus with a group of people who just had picnic at the
beach.
Together with their neighbor, Rosaliah, 7 Rick and Kathlene
proceeded to Matanao, Davao del Sur, after learning that the minibus was
Matanao-bound. With the assistance of the police, they were able to find the
owner of the minibus who told them that he indeed saw AAA inside his bus.
The charterer of the minibus, Arthur Lucero, informed them that AAA went
to the house of the Nerios in Blocon, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur. It was
already 1:00 a.m. of February 27, 2003 when they arrived at said house.
When Lucero knocked, it was the mother of the accused-appellant, Violeta,
who opened the door. When Kathlene asked about her daughter, Violeta
told her that AAA was sleeping upstairs. But when Kathlene started
Violence Against Women and their Children Act," the real names of the rape victims will not be disclosed.
The Court will instead use fictitious initials to represent them throughout the decision. The personal
circumstances of the victims or any other information tending to establish or compromise their identities
will likewise be withheld.
4
CA rollo, p. 34.
Records, p. 18, 20.
6
Not her real name; supra note 3.
Id.

t7I

Decision

G.R. No. 200940

climbing the stairs, Violeta immediately corrected herself and said that AAA
was, in fact, sleeping on the ground floor. Still, Kathlene proceeded and
upon seeing a room with the door left ajar, she went inside. To her disll)ay,
she saw her daughter scantily clad sleeping beside a half-naked Nerio, with
her head resting on the latter's shoulder.
When Rosaliah asked Violeta why she allowed her son to sleep with
AAA, she received no answer. So they took AAA and proceeded to the
Matanao Police Station to report the incident before finally returning home
to Digos.
On February 28, 2003, Dr. Arthur Navidad examined AAA. He found
a hymenal laceration at eleven (11) o'clock position, which appeared fresh
and could not have occurred more than three (3) days from the date he
examined AAA. Dr. Navidad also testified that AAA acted like a small
child so they even had to bribe her in order to examine her genital area.
The prosecution likewise presented a Psychological Assessment
Report8 on AAA by the psychologist at the Psychiatry Department of Davao
Medical Center, which reads:
MENTAL ABILITY:

Subject gained a raw score of 11 and its equivalent percentile rating is

55%. Results suggest Mild [to] Moderate Mental Retardation. Subject
attains intellectual levels similar to those of average four - seven year-old
children. She can hardly understand simple instructions.
xx xx

In defense of her son, Violeta testified that AAA, who was a complete
stranger to them, joined them during their picnic on February 26, 2003 at the
Aplaya Beach in Digos. When they were about to go home, AAA also
boarded the minibus. When asked to leave, AAA simply held on to her seat.
Since they could not seem to do anything that would make AAA leave, they
decided to take her home with them and just bring her to the barangay
officials the following day. At home, Nerio would ask his mother to take
AAA downstairs because she kept following him to his room. Later, when it
was time to sleep, Violeta asked Nerio and AAA to come down and they all
slept on the ground floor, with Violeta in between the two (2). Nerio, for his
part, testified that all along, he and his family knew that AAA is a special
child. He was also surprised that the police came to their house late at night
but he did not mind because he thought they only came to take AAA home.
Thus, he was shocked when he learned that he was being accused of raping
Exhibit "E," Folder of Exhibits ..

Decision

G.R. No. 200940

AAA. He asserted that he could not have abused AAA because he slept
downstairs while AAA slept upstairs with his mother and sisters.
On July 22, 2010, the RTC of Bansalan, Davao del Sur found Nerio
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The decretal portion of
the Decision declares:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds
accused Martin Nerio, Jr. guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt and is
hereby meted the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and ordered to pay private
complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
damages.
SO ORDERED. 9

Nerio thus sought relief from the CA. On September 30, 2011, the
appellate court rendered a Decision affirming the trial court's ruling in its
entirety. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The court a quo's
Decision dated July 22, 2010 in Criminal Case No. XXI-1016 (03) is
AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 10

Nerio now comes before the Court seeking the reversal of the CA
Decision. He raises the lone issue of whether there can be a finding of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt in the crime of rape where the victim, who is
mentally disabled, was not presented in court during trial to substantiate the
accusation in the criminal information. 11
The Court finds the petition to be devoid of merit.
Mental retardation has been defined as a chronic condition that exists
at birth or early childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual
functioning measured by standardized tests. Intellectual or mental disability
is a term synonymous with and is now preferred over the older term, mental
. 12
retardat10n.
Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), rape can be
committed in the following manner:

JO

CA rollo, pp. 45-46.

Rollo, p. 17.

II

12

Id. at 38.
/)/
/
533
People v. Suan,fog, G .R. No. 189822, Seplembe< 2, 2013, 704 SCRA 515, 532- ~f'

Decision

Art. 266-A. Rape,

committed-

When and How Committed. -

G.R. No. 200940

Rape 1s

1. By a man who shall 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 is
otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority;
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;
xx x

13

It is settled that carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental

retardate is rape as she is in the same class as a woman deprived of reason or

otherwise unconscious. The term "deprived of reason" has been construed
to encompass those who are suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency
or retardation. 14 Carnal knowledge of a woman above twelve (12) years of
age but with the mental age of a child below twelve (12) years, even if she
agrees to the same, is rape because a mental retardate cannot give a valid and
intelligent consent to such act. 15 If sexual intercourse with a child below
twelve (12) years of age is rape, then it must follow that sexual intercourse
with a thirteen-year-old girl whose mental capacity is that of a four or sevenyear-old child will likewise constitute rape. 16 The essence of the offense is
whether the alleged victim has the ability to render an intelligent consent,
and therefore, could not have been deprived of the required reason at the
time of the sexual congress. Contrary to the assertion of the defense, the
prosecution was able to establish that AAA is indeed a special child. In fact,
Nerio himself said in his direct testimony that he and his family had known
from the start that AAA is a special child. 17 At the time of the incident,
AAA was already in her sixth year as a Grade 1 pupil. According to
Kathlene, she first noticed that her adopted child is mentally challenged
when the latter was merely six (6) years old. Dr. Navidad observed that
when he was about to conduct the physical examination, AAA, a thirteenyear-old, acted more like a small child. She started crying and refused to be
examined. The prosecution also submitted the Psychological Assessment
Report showing that AAA has Mild to Moderate Mental Retardation.
Lastly, the lower court observed that while in court and seated next to
Kathlene, AAA would bury her head on the lap of her mother and would

13
14

15
16
17

People v. CA, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015. (Emphasis ours)
People v. Dafan, G.R. No. 203086, June 11, 2014, 726 SCRA 335, 340.
People v. Erardo, 343 Phil. 438, 449 (1997).
People v. Manfapaz, 177 Phil. 650, 663 (1979).
TSN, September 15, 2009.

Decision

G.R. No. 200940

make unnecessary and imperceptible sounds. This would prompt Kathlene

to bring her out of the court from time to time. 18
Nerio doubts the trial court's conclusion that AAA is mentally
retarded based merely on its observation of her demeanor in court. He
strongly presses that AAA was never presented in court as a witness. AAA
even refused to give her name when asked to be identified. The lower court,
therefore, could not have possibly been sure that the child seated beside
Kathlene was indeed AAA.
This argument is ludicrously misplaced.
It is true that in rape cases, the testimony of the victim is essential.
However, when the victim is a small child or, as in this case, someone who
acts like one, and thus cannot effectively testify as to the details of the
offense, and there are no other eyewitnesses, resort to circumstantial
evidence becomes inevitable. Circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred
to as indirect or presumptive evidence, indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence
established. 19 It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence. 20
Resort to it is imperative when the lack of direct testimony would result in
setting an outlaw free. The Court reiterates that direct evidence of the
commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court may draw its
finding of guilt. 21 In fact, circumstantial evidence, when demonstrated with
clarity and forcefulness, may even be the sole basis of a criminal conviction.
It cannot be overturned by bare denials or hackneyed alibis. 22 Established
facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or
impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction. Verily, resort
to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 133 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence.
The following are the requisites for
circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support conviction: (a) there is
more than one ( 1) circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all these
circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion
of all others, is the one who committed the crime. Thus, to justify a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of
circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable
doubt as to the guilt of the accused. 23

4/

// v
18
19

20
21

22
23

CA rollo, p. 45.
Bastian v. CA, 575 Phil. 42, 55 (2008).
People v. Matito, 468 Phil. 14, 26 (2004).
Bastian v. CA, supra note 19.
People v. Matito, supra note 20, at 18.
Bastian v. CA, supra note 19, at 56.

Decision

G.R. No. 200940

Here, AAA was not presented to testify in court because she was
declared unfit to fully discharge the functions of a credible witness. The
psychologist who examined her found that her answers reveal a low
intellectual sphere, poor insight, and lack of capacity to deal with matters
rationally. She could hardly even understand simple instructions. 24 The
testimonies of the prosecuti0n witnesses, who were not shown to have any
malicious motive to fabricate a story, positively identified Nerio as the
person seen alone with AAA in bed in the evening of February 26, 2003.
AAA, who was only in a sando and panties, had her head on the shoulder of
Nerio, who was naked and only had a blanket covering the lower portion of
his body. Although Nerio denied this because he allegedly slept downstairs,
while AAA slept with his mother and sisters upstairs, his testimony is
inconsistent with that of his mother, who testified that AAA and Nerio
actually slept in one ( 1) room, but she lay between the two. Further, Dr.
Navidad found a fresh hymenal laceration on AAA's genitals. He explained
that it could not have been inflicted more than three (3) days from the date
he examined AAA. There was likewise no showing that AAA met with
another man during that three-day-period. Hence, the courts below did not
err when they held that these pertinent circumstances proven during the trial
form an unbroken chain of events leading to the conclusion that Nerio had
carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent. 25
More importantly, when it comes to credibility, the trial court's
assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight
and influence, as in this case. Since it had the full opportunity to observe
directly the deportment and the manner of testifying of the witnesses before
it, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly
evaluate testimonial evidence. Unlike the trial courts, the appellate courts
are far detached from the details and drama during trial and have to rely
solely on the records of the case in its review. The defense failed to show
any palpable error, arbitrariness, or capriciousness on the trial court's
findings of fact; these findings must, therefore, be given due deference and
. ht. 26
great we1g
I

As regards the penalty, the courts below were correct in imposing

reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B of the RPC. However, with respect
to the civil liability, Nerio must likewise pay AAA exemplary damages in
the amount of P30,000.00 by way of example in order to deter others from
committing the same bestial act especially against mentally challenged
persons. This will be in addition to the PS0,000.00 for civil indemnity and
another 1!50,000.00 as moral damages granted by the courts below. /

24

25
26

Rollo, p. 16.
Trinidadv. People, G.R. No. 192241, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 486, 493.
People v. Court qfAppeals, supra note 13.

Decision

G.R. No. 200940

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED

and the Decision dated September 30, 2011 of the Court of Appeals
affirming the Decision dated July 22, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of
Bansalan, Davao del Sur, Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. XXI-1016(03),
finding accused-appellant Martin Nerio, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to
the amount of his civil liability. He is ORDERED to PAY an additional
amount of30,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice

J. VELASCO, JR.
ociate Justice
Chairperson

~-

Associate-Justice

Associate Ju~

Decision

G.R. No. 200940

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

J. VELASCO, JR.
As0ciate Justice
Chairpfrson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

TRUE COPY

~L~

Dlvisio
Third Division

AUG 1 1 2015