11/10/2016

G.R.No.121211

TodayisThursday,November10,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.121211April30,2003
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,appellee,
vs.
RONETODEGAMOalias"Roy",appellant.
PERCURIAM:
Before us for automatic review is a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 12) of Ormoc City
imposingthesupremepenaltyofdeathonappellantRonetoDegamoalias"Roy"forthecrimeofrapewiththeuse
ofadeadlyweaponandtheaggravatingcircumstancesofdwellingandnighttime.
OnOctober4,1994,acomplaintwasfiledbeforethetrialcourtchargingappellantwiththecrimeofrapetowhich,
uponarraignment,pleadednotguilty.
OnJanuary17,1995,beforethestartofthetrialproper,thecourtaquoallowedthecomplainttobeamendedto
includetheallegationthatbyreasonoftheincidentofrape,thevictimhasbecomeinsane,1towit:
The undersigned Prosecutor accuses RONETO DEGAMO alias Roy of the crime of RAPE committed as
follows:
That on or about the 1st day of October 1994 at around 1:00 o'clock in the early morning, in Brgy.
Punta, Ormoc City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused
RONETO DEGAMO alias Roy, being then armed with a bladed weapon, by means of violence and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the
complainanthereinELLENVERTUDAZO,againstherwillandinherownhouse.
Allcontrarytolawandwiththeaggravatingcircumstancesthatthesaidoffensewascommittedinthe
dwelling of the offended party, the latter not having given provocation for the offense and that by
reasonoftheincidentofrape,thevictimbecomeinsane.
InviolationofArticle335,RevisedPenalCode.
Uponrearraignment,appellantpleadednotguiltytothecharge.2
Trialensued.
Asborneoutbyitsevidence,thefollowingistheversionoftheprosecution:
Complainant Ellen Vertudazo and her children were living in a rented apartment at Barangay Punta, Ormoc City.
SheandherfamilyjustmovedintotheneighborhoodonJuly15,1994.3 She was not personally acquainted with
appellant although she knew him to be one of their neighbors. On August 2, 1994, her brotherinlaw, Venancio,
camefromtheprovinceforavisitandstayedinherhouse.Itwasduringthistimethatappellantbecameacquainted
with Venancio. On September 30, 1994, appellant invited Venancio for a night out. Venancio left complainant's
house immediately after supper, telling her that he would return to the house. Later that night, or on October 1,
1994, at around 1:00 in the morning, complainant heard someone calling her name. She unwittingly opened the
doorthinkingthatVenanciohadreturned.4Thereupon,appellantforcedhiswayinsidethehouseandpokedaknife
atcomplainant'sneck.Shetriedtomoveawayfromappellantbuthegrabbedherandtoldherthathewouldkillher
ifshewillnotaccedetohisdemands.Appellantthentoldhertoputoffthelight,stripoffherclothesandnotmake
anynoise.Overwhelmedwithfear,complainantmeeklyfollowedtheordersofappellantwhoproceededtokissher
lips,breastsandallpartsofherbody.Helaidherontheconcretefloorandsucceededinhavingcarnalknowledge
ofher.Appellantwasholdingtheknifewhilehavingsexualintercoursewithcomplainant.Hewarnedhernottotell
anyoneabouttheincident,thenheleft.Complainantwentupstairsandjustcried.Inthemorningofthesameday,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/apr2003/gr_121211_2003.html

1/9

11/10/2016

G.R.No.121211

complainant reported the incident to the Barangay Captain and to the police. She submitted herself for medical
examinationatthehealthcenteronOctober3,1994.Uponlearningoftheincident,herhusband,whowasworking
inSaudiArabia,immediatelycamehome.5
Duetohertraumaticexperienceatthehandsofappellant,complainantunderwentpsychiatrictreatmentinTacloban
City.6ShewasfirstbroughttoDr.GemelinaCerroGo7fortreatmentonNovember8,1994.Dr.Gofoundhercase
ofpsychosisalreadyacuteandchronic.ComplainantwastalkingtoherselfandeachtimeDr.Gowouldaskhera
question, she repeatedly said, "Gi padlock ang akong hunahuna." Dr. Go also observed that complainant talked
irrelevantly,hadlostassociationandhadseveredestructiveinclinations.Shedidnotlistentoanybodyandjustkept
staring outside the window. Dr. Go concluded that complainant was suffering from psychosis, a form of mental
disorder, induced byanoverwhelmingtraumasecondarytorape.Complainantvisited Dr. Go again on December
15,1994andonJanuary3,1995.Dr.Goprescribedantipsychoticdrugstocomplainantwho,afterthreeweeksof
treatment,showedsignsofimprovement.Complainantcouldalreadysleepalthoughshehasnotyetregainedher
normalorregularsleepingpattern.Herdelusionsandhallucinationswerenotasseriousanymore,butshewasstill
out of contact. She could not function normally as a wife and as a mother. Since complainant still suffered from
psychosis,Dr.Goadministeredtoheradoseoflowactingtranquilizerinjections,antidepressantsandshortacting
oraltablets.8
Dr.Goclarifiedthatpsychosisisusuallythetechnicaltermforinsanity.9Shedeclaredthatcomplainanthasnotfully
recovered from psychosis and that without continuous treatment, complainant would regress and she would
completelyloseallaspectsoffunctioning.10
Appellant'sversionisbasedonhislonetestimony.Headmitsthatheandcomplainantwereneighborsbutclaims
thattheywerelovers.HefurthertestifiedthathemetcomplainantforthefirsttimeduringthelastweekofAugust
1994ataneighborhoodstore.Complainantreadilyagreedwhenheaskedherifitwouldbepossibleforthemtoget
toknoweachotherbetter.Later,ataround8:00o'clockintheevening,heandcomplainanthadaconversationin
front of the gate of her apartment. He learned from her that her husband was working abroad. When he told the
complainantthathewantedtocourther,complainantsaid,"It'suptoyou."Encouragedbycomplainant'sreply,he
returnedatmidnightandknockedatthegateofherapartment.Complainantpeepedthroughthejalousiesandwent
down to the first floor. She opened the gate and let him in. Upon having entered the house, he sat at the sofa,
placedhishandsontheshoulderofcomplainant,whobythenhadalreadysatbesidehim,andtouchedherears.
She did nothing to repel appellant's advances but just looked up. When asked to remove her shirt, complainant
willinglyobliged.Heproceededtokisscomplainantallover.Sheremovedhershortpantswhenappellantaskedher
todoso.Hethenremovedhisshirtandcontinuedtokisscomplainant'sbreasts,chestandthighs.Hewantedthat
theymove upstairs butshedemurredsayingthatherchildrenwereupstairs.Complainant instead suggested that
theymovetothecementfloorsincethesofawasnoisy.Hegotarousedaftertransferringtothefloor,soheremoved
hisshortpantsandbriefs.Complainantlikewiseremovedherunderwear.Theyhadsexualintercoursewithouthim
having to use force on complainant. Thereafter, they dressed up. He left the place at 1:00 in the morning. They
repeatedthesameactonfourmoreoccasionsusuallyat12:00midnight.Hedidnothavetouseforce,muchless
threatencomplainantwithaknifewhentheyhadsexualintercourseonOctober1,1994.11
OnMay22,1995,thetrialcourtrenderedadecision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreadsasfollows:
WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered finding the accused RONETO DEGAMO, a.k.a. Roy, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of rape defined and penalized under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659. Appreciating the aggravating circumstances of
dwellingandnighttimewithnomitigatingcircumstancetooffsetanyofthetwoandpursuanttoArticle63of
theRevisedPenalCode,thiscourtimposesuponthesameRonetoDegamo,a.k.a.Roy,theextremepenalty
ofDEATH.Further,thesameRonetoDegamo,a.k.a.Roy,isdirectedtoindemnifyEllenVertudazothesumof
THIRTYTHOUSANDPESOS(P30,000.00)andtopaythecosts.
Asthesentenceimposedisdeath,thejailwardenofOrmocCityisdirectedtoimmediatelycommittheperson
ofRonetoDegamo,a.k.a.Roy,totheNationalBilibidPrisonsatMuntinlupa,MetroManilawhileawaitingthe
reviewofthisdecisionbytheSupremeCourt.
SOORDERED.12
Hence,thisautomaticreview.
Adiscussionofcertainproceduralrulesisinorderbeforegoingintothemeritsofthecase.Ithasnotescapedour
notice that the complaint for rape with use of a deadly weapon was amended after arraignment of appellant to
include the allegation that the victim has become insane by reason or on the occasion of the rape. Although the
penaltyforrapewiththeuseofadeadlyweaponundertheoriginalInformationisreclusionperpetuatodeath,the
mandatorypenaltyofdeathisimposedwherethevictimhasbecomeinsanebyreasonorontheoccasionofrape
asallegedintheAmendedInformation.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/apr2003/gr_121211_2003.html

2/9

11/10/2016

G.R.No.121211

UnderSection14,Rule110oftheRulesofCourt,anamendmentafterthepleaoftheaccusedispermittedonlyas
tomattersofform,provided:(i)leaveofcourtisobtainedand(ii)suchamendmentisnotprejudicialtotherightsof
theaccused.Asubstantialamendmentisnotpermittedaftertheaccusedhadalreadybeenarraigned.
InTeehankee,Jr.vs.Madayag,13wehadoccasiontostatethatasubstantialamendmentconsistsofrecitaloffacts
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of
form.Thefollowingwereheldtobemerelyformalamendments:(1)newallegationswhichrelateonlytotherangeof
thepenaltythatthecourtmightimposeintheeventofconviction(2)anamendmentwhichdoesnotchargeanother
offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one (3) additional allegations which do not alter the
prosecution'stheoryofthecasesoastocausesurprisetotheaccusedandaffecttheformofdefensehehasorwill
assumeand(4)amendment,whichdoesnotadverselyaffectanysubstantialrightoftheaccused,suchashisright
toinvokeprescription.
We further elucidated in the Teehankee case that the test as to whether an amendment is only of form and an
accused is not prejudiced by such amendment is whether or not a defense under the information as it originally
stoodwouldbeequallyavailableaftertheamendmentismade,andwhetherornotanyevidencewhichtheaccused
might have would be equally applicable to the information in one form as in the other if the answer is in the
affirmative,theamendmentisoneofformandnotofsubstance.14
Testedagainsttheforegoingguidelines,thesubjectamendmentisclearlynotoneofsubstanceasitfallsunderallof
theformalamendmentsenumeratedintheTeehankeecase.Theinsertionofthephrasethatthevictimhasbecome
insanebyreasonoronoccasionoftherapeintheInformationmerelyraisedthepenaltythatmaybeimposedin
case of conviction and does not charge another offense different from that charged in the original Information.
Whatever defense appellant may have raised under the original information for rape committed with a deadly
weaponequallyappliestorapecommittedwithadeadlyweaponwherethevictimhasbecomeinsanebyreasonor
onoccasionoftherape.Theamendmentdidnotadverselyaffectanysubstantialrightofappellant.Therefore,the
trialcourtcorrectlyallowedtheamendment.
Furthermore,itisalsosettledthatamendmentofaninformationtochargeamoreseriousoffenseispermissibleand
doesnotconstitutedoublejeopardyevenwheretheaccusedwasalreadyarraignedandpleadednotguiltytothe
charge,wherethebasisofthemoreseriouschargedidnotexist,butcomesasasubsequentevent.15Inthiscase
the basis for the amendment was the psychosis of complainant which was determined after the filing of the
information.
Unlikeotherqualifyingcircumstances,insanityofthevictimbyreasonoronoccasionoftherapemaynotbereadily
discernedrightafterthecommissionofthecrime.Theresultantinsanityofthevictimcouldbeeasilymistakenasa
mereinitialreaction,suchasshock,totheincident.Inothercases,itmaytakesomeweeksorevenmonthsforthe
insanity of the victim to manifest. Consequently, a psychiatrist would need some time with the victim before
concludingthatsheisindeedsufferingfrominsanityasaresultofrape.Underthesecircumstances,thesubsequent
diagnosis of insanity by reason or on occasion of the rape is akin to a supervening event in which case, the
correspondingamendmentoftheinformationmaybeallowed,ascorrectlydonebythetrialcourt.
Besides, the trial proper started only after appellant had been rearraigned and appellant never objected to the
amendment at any stage of the proceedings. It is basic that objection to the amendment of an information or
complaint must be raised at the time the amendment is made, otherwise, silence would be deemed a consent to
saidamendment.Itisatimehonoreddoctrinethatobjectiontotheamendmentmustbeseasonablymade,forwhen
the trial was had upon an information substituted for the complaint or information without any objection by the
defense,thedefectisdeemedwaived.Itcannotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.16
Weshallnowproceedtothemeritsofthecase.
ThetrialcourtgavecredencetothetestimonyofvictimEllenVertudazothatappellantrapedherwiththeuseofa
deadly weapon. It held that she would not have agreed to endure the indignities of physical examination of her
privatepartsandtheembarrassmentofapublictrialwereitnotforadesiretoseekjusticeforherself.Moreover,the
trialcourtfoundthatotherthantheselfservingtestimonyofappellant,noevidencewasintroducedtosupporthis
claim that he and complainant were having an illicit love affair and that there was no ill motive on the part of
complainantforimputingtheseriouschargeofrapeagainstappellant.
In his Appellant's Brief, appellant raises a single assignment of error, to wit: "The trial court erred in finding the
accusedguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrape",insupportofwhich,heargues:
1.Thefactthatatfirstcomplainantsaidsheopenedthedoorfortheaccusedandlaterdeniedthis,isnotan
inconsequentialcontradiction.
2.Complainanthadnotbecomeinsanebyreasonoftherapebecauseshegaveintelligentanswersonthe
witnessstand.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/apr2003/gr_121211_2003.html

3/9

11/10/2016

G.R.No.121211

Wefindtheappealwithoutmerit.
Itisdoctrinalthattheevaluationoftestimonialevidencebytrialcourtsisaccordedgreatrespectpreciselybecause
of its chance to observe firsthand the demeanor of the witnesses, a matter which is important in determining
whetherwhathasbeentestifiedtomaybetakentobethetruthorfalsehood.17Appellantfailedtoshowanycogent
reasonforustodisturbthefindingsofthetrialcourt.
Complainant and her family had just moved in the neighborhood a little more than two months before she was
raped.Priortotheincidentofrape,sheonlyknewappellantasoneofherneighborsbutdidnotpersonallyknow
him.18 Appellant would have us to believe that hours after a chance meeting at a nearby sarisari store,
complainant,amarriedwomanwithchildren,wassomorallydebasedastoreadilyaccedetohissexualadvances
atherownapartmentwhileherchildrenwereasleep.Likethetrialcourt,wefinditunlikelyforamarriedwomanwith
children who had just moved into the neighborhood to place herself on public trial for rape where she would be
subjectedtosuspicion,morbidcuriosity,maliciousimputationsandclosescrutinyofherpersonallifeandcharacter,
not to speak of the humiliation and scandal she and her family would suffer, if she were merely concocting her
chargeagainstappellantandwouldnotbeabletoproveitincourt.
Appellantinsiststhatthecomplaintwaspromptedbycomplainant'sfearthatherhusband'srelativesmightdiscover
herinfidelity.Wearenotconvinced.Asidefromthebareassertionofappellantthatheandcomplainantwerehaving
anaffair,hefailedtopresentcorroborativeevidenceofanykindsuchaslovenotes,mementosorpictures19orthe
testimoniesofneighbors,relativesorfriends.Thereisnoshowingthattherelativesofcomplainant'shusbandeven
suspectedthatshewashavinganillicitaffair.Further,complainantnotonlyfiledthechargesofrapeimmediately
aftertheincident,shealsosubmittedherselfformedicalexaminationandsoughtpsychiatrictreatmentduetothe
traumacausedbyherordeal.Ifsheandappellantwereindeedlovers,therewouldhavebeennoreasonforherto
besotraumatizedbytheirsexualliaisonsandundergopsychiatrictreatment.
Worthnotingtooisthefactthatthereisnoevidencenorevenanindicationthatcomplainantwasimpelledbyan
impropermotiveinmakingtheaccusationagainstappellant.Theabsenceofanyimpropermotiveofcomplainantto
impute such a serious offense against appellant persuades us that complainant filed the rape charge against
appellantfornootherreasonthantoseekjusticeforthebestialdeedcommittedagainsther.Settledisthedoctrine
thatwhenthereisnoevidencetoshowanydubiousreasonorimpropermotivewhyaprosecutionwitnessshould
testify falsely against the accused or implicate him in a serious offense, the testimony deserves full faith and
credit.20
Appellantpressesthatthetrialcourtshouldhavetakennotethatcomplainantgavecontradictingtestimoniesasshe
had earlier testified that she opened the door to appellant but later denied this on cross examination and that
complainantmusthaveperceivedtheseriousimplicationsofherearliertestimonysoshedeliberatelychangedher
testimony.
Afterareviewofthetestimonyofcomplainant,wefindnosuchcontradictions.Complainantclearlytestifiedthatshe
openedthedoorwhensheheardsomeonecallinghernametoopenitbecauseshethoughtthatherbrotherinlaw,
Venancio,wholeftthehouseearlierattheinvitationofappellant,hadalreadycomehomeforthenight.Itwastoo
latewhensherealizedthatitwasappellantalonewhohadcalledonhertoopenthedoor.21
Appellantfurtherarguesthatthequalifyingcircumstanceoftheuseofadeadlyweaponinthecommissionofthe
crimeshouldnotbeconsideredsincetheweaponwasneverpresentedasevidenceincourt.Wearenotpersuaded.
Itissettledthatthenonpresentationoftheweaponusedinthecommissionofrapeisnotessentialtotheconviction
of the accused.22 The testimony of the rape victim that appellant was armed with a deadly weapon when he
committedthecrimeissufficienttoestablishthatfactforsolongasthevictimiscredible.23Itmustbestressedthat
inrape,itisusuallyonlythevictimwhocanattesttoitsoccurrenceandthatiswhycourtssubjectthetestimonyof
the alleged victims to strict scrutiny before relying on it for the conviction of the accused.24 In the present case,
complainant positively described how appellant, armed with a knife, threatened and raped her. Appellant failed to
showanycompellingreasonforustobrushasidetheprobativeweightgivenbythetrialcourttothetestimonyof
herein complainant. Absent any showing that certain facts of substance and significance have been plainly
overlookedorthatthetrialcourt'sfindingsareclearlyarbitrary,theconclusionsreachedbythetrialcourtmustbe
respectedandthejudgmentrenderedshouldbeaffirmed.25
WetakenotethatDr.ErnestoCalipayanconductedaphysicalexaminationofthevictimonOctober3,1994,andhe
issuedaMedicalCertificatewhereinitisstatedthatthe"entirevulvaandvestibulearenormallylookingandshowed
nosignsoftraumaticinjury"andthatamicroscopicexaminationofthecervicalandvaginalsmearshowedthatitis
negativeforspermcells.26Saidfindingshowever,donotdemolishthepositivetestimonyofthevictimthatshehad
been raped by appellant. The absence of traumatic injury on her vulva and vestibule is not a strong proof that
appellantdidnotuseforceonthevictimwhosubmittedtothedastardlyactofappellantbecauseoftheknifewielded
by him. It is within the realm of logic, reason and human experience that the victim, who had given birth to two
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/apr2003/gr_121211_2003.html

4/9

11/10/2016

G.R.No.121211

children, because of the fear for her life, may not have exerted that degree of resistance that would have been
neededtoproducetraumaticinjuryonherprivateparts.
Moreover, the fact that no sperm was found in the cervical and vaginal smear is satisfactorily explained by Dr.
Calipayan that human spermatozoa will not survive between fortyeight to seventytwo hours.27 In complainant's
case,shewasexaminedonOctober3,1994,ormorethanfortyeighthoursaftershewasrapedonOctober1,1994
between12:00midnightand1:00inthemorning.
Itisasettledrulethatproofbeyondreasonabledoubtdoesnotconnoteabsolutecertainty,itmeansthatdegreeof
proof which, after an investigation of the whole record, produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the
accused'sculpability.28Itsignifiessuchproofthatconvincesandsatisfiesthereasonandconscienceofthosewho
aretoactuponitthatappellantisguiltyofthecrimecharged.29
Inthecaseatbar,thereisnodoubtthatappellanthadcommittedthecrimeofrape.Appellantfailedtoshowthatthe
trialcourtcommittedanyreversibleerrorinfindinghimguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofrapingcomplainantwith
theuseofadeadlyweapon.
UnderArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended,wheneverthecrimeofrapeiscommittedwiththeuseof
adeadlyweapon,thepenaltyshallbereclusionperpetuatodeath.
Inmetingoutthepenaltyofdeath,thetrialcourtconsidereddwellingandnighttimeasaggravatingcircumstancesin
thecommissionofthecrimeofrapecommittedwithadeadlyweapon.
The trial court should not have considered the aggravating circumstance of nighttime against appellant. Not only
wasitnotallegedasanaggravatingcircumstanceintheInformation,butalso,thereisnoclearproofthatappellant
deliberatelytookadvantageofthecoverofdarknesstofacilitatethecommissionofthecrime.Complainantherself
eventestifiedthattheflourescentlightatthegroundfloorofthehousewasnotswitchedoffuntilafterappellanthad
alreadyenteredthehouseandtoldhertoturnitoff.30
However,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinimposingthepenaltyofdeathonappellant.Itisestablishedbytheprosecution
thatthecrimeofrapewiththeuseofadeadlyweaponwascommittedinthedwellingofcomplainant.Dwellingis
alleged in the Information and was unrefuted by appellant. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, in cases
where the law provides a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the presence of an aggravating
circumstancewarrantstheimpositionofthegreaterpenaltywhichisdeath.
Wenowturntotheissueastowhetherornotthequalifyingcircumstanceofinsanityofthevictimbyreasonoron
occasionoftherape,committedagainstcomplainantshouldlikewisebeconsideredintheimpositionoftheproper
penalty.
Republic Act No. 765931 expressly provides that when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
becomeinsane,thepenaltyshallbedeath.
Thetrialcourtobserves:
Thereisnojurisprudenceyet,however,whichconstruedtheprovision"hasbecomeinsane."Thoughthereis
nodoubtthatthedeathpenaltyshallbeimposedifthevictimbecomespermanentlyinsane,thereisnoruling
yetwhethertemporaryinsanitybyreasonofrape(whenthevictimrespondedtopsychiatrictreatmentasin
thepresentcase)stillfallswithinthepurviewofthesameprovision.32
FortheguidanceoftheBenchandtheBar,wedeemitpropertoresolvewhatshouldbethecorrectconstructionof
theprovision"hasbecomeinsane"byreasonoronoccasionoftherapecommitted.
It is a hornbook doctrine in statutory construction that it is the duty of the court in construing a law to determine
legislativeintentionfromitslanguage.33Thehistoryofeventsthattranspiredduringtheprocessofenactingalaw,
fromitsintroductioninthelegislaturetoitsfinalvalidationhasgenerallybeenthefirstextrinsicaidtowhichcourts
turntoconstrueanambiguousact.34
Republic Act No. 263235 is the first law that introduced the qualifying circumstance of insanity by reason or on
occasion of rape, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. An examination of the deliberation of the
lawmakersinenactingR.A.No.2632,convincesusthatthedegreeofinsanity,whetherpermanentortemporary,is
notrelevantinconsideringthesameasaqualifyingcircumstanceforaslongasthevictimhasbecomeinsaneby
reasonoronoccasionoftherape.
Congressional records36 disclose that when Senator Pedro Sabido first broached the possibility of regarding
insanityasaqualifyingcircumstanceinrape,hedescribeditas"perpetualincapacityorinsanity".Theinterpellations
on Senate Bill No. 21 which later evolved into R.A. No. 2632 did not include the rationale for the inclusion of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/apr2003/gr_121211_2003.html

5/9

11/10/2016

G.R.No.121211

victim'sinsanitybyreasonoroccasionofrapeasaqualifyingcircumstance.Neitherdidthelegislatorsdiscussthe
degreeofinsanityofthevictimbyreasonoronoccasionofrapeforittobeconsideredasaqualifyingcircumstance.
After the interpellations on the other proposed amendments to Senate Bill No. 21, the Senate session was
suspended.Uponresumptionofthesession,thelegislatorsagreed,amongothermatters,thattheprovision,"when
byreasonoronoccasionofrape,thevictimhasbecomeinsane,thepenaltyofreclusionperpetuashallbelikewise
reclusionperpetua",beincorporatedinthelaw.37Thus,Article335,asamendedbyR.A.No.2632,readasfollows:
Art.335.Whenandhowrapeiscommitted.Penalties.Rapeiscommittedbyhavingcarnalknowledgeofa
womanunderanyofthefollowingcircumstances:
1.Byusingforceorintimidation
2.Whenthewomanisdeprivedofreasonorotherwiseunconsciousand
3.Whenthewomanisundertwelveyearsofage,eventhoughneitherofthecircumstancesmentionedinthe
twonextprecedingparagraphsshallbepresent.
Thecrimeofrapeshallbepunishedbyreclusiontemporal.
Wheneverthecrimeofrapeiscommittedwiththeuseofadeadlyweaponorbytwoormorepersons,the
penaltyshallbeimposedinitsmaximumperiod.
Whenbyreasonorontheoccasionofrape,ahomicideiscommittedthepenaltyshallbereclusionperpetua
todeath.
Whentherapeisfrustratedorattemptedandahomicideiscommittedbyreasonorontheoccasionthereof,
thepenaltyshallbereclusionperpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be
likewisereclusionperpetua.[Emphasissupplied]
Significantly,thewords"perpetual"and"incapacity"werenotretainedbythelegislators.Theymerelyusedtheword
"insanity".Itiswellestablishedinlegalhermeneuticsthatininterpretingastatute,careshouldbetakenthatevery
part or word thereof be given effect since the lawmaking body is presumed to know the meaning of the words
employed in the statute and to have used them advisedly.38 Applied inversely, the courts should not interject a
condition,makeadistinction,orimposeanylimitationwherethelegislatorsdidnotopttodoso.
Thus, it is without any doubt that when the legislators included the victim's resultant insanity as a qualifying
circumstanceinrapecases,itdidnotintendorimposeasaconditionthattheinsanitymustbeofpermanentnature,
orthatitshouldhavebeenmanifestedbythevictimbeforethefilingofthecomplaintofinformation,before,during
or after trial. Otherwise, it would have been so expressly stated, especially so, that Senator Sabido had initially
suggested "perpetual incapacity or insanity." As the Congressional records reveal, the legislators chose not to
includetheword"perpetual"inthebillenactedintolaw.
Article335oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyR.A.No.2632,wasfurtheramendedbyRepublicActNo.
4111wherebythepenaltyisincreasedtodeath"whenbyreasonorontheoccasionofrape,thevictimhasbecome
insane".
R.A.No.7659whichtookeffectonDecember31,1993,merelyreiteratedtheimpositionofdeathpenalty"whenby
reasonorontheoccasionoftherape,thevictimhasbecomeinsane."
IntheenactmentofbothR.A.Nos.4111and7659,thelegislatorsmerelyreiteratedorreproducedtheprovisionon
insanityunderR.A.No.2632exceptastotheimposablepenalty,withoutmakinganydistinctionastothedegreeof
insanitythatmayormaynotbeconsideredasaqualifyingcircumstance.
Consequently,thefactthatthevictimduringtrialorwhilethecaseispending,hasreturnedtonormalbehaviorafter
undergoingtreatment,doesnotexculpatetheappellantfromthepenaltyofdeath.
Itisinherentlydifficultforustosettheparametersorfixahardandfastruleastowheninsanitymaybeconsidered
aqualifyingcircumstance.Whethertheraperesultedintheinsanityofthevictimshallhavetoberesolvedbythe
courtsonacasetocasebasis.Sufficeittobestatedthattheresultantinsanityofthevictiminrapecasesmustat
least be manifest at the time of filing the complaint or information or at any time thereafter before judgment is
rendered, in which case, the information may accordingly be amended.39 The reason for this is simple. Rape is
alwaysatraumaticexperienceforthevictimwhonecessarilysuffersuntoldpsychologicalandemotionaldamage.
Likevictimsofothercrimes,rapevictimshavedifferentwaysofcopingwiththetraumabroughtaboutbythecrime.
Whileonemayexhibitshockordepressionimmediatelyafterthecrimeandrecoverthereafter,anothermightrequire
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/apr2003/gr_121211_2003.html

6/9

11/10/2016

G.R.No.121211

alongerperiodtoexhibitthesesamesymptomsandnotreturntonormalcy.Certainly,onecannevercalculateor
measurethedepthsofthepsychologicalandemotionaldamagethatrapeinflictsonthevictim.
Inthecaseatbar,Dr.GohadcompetentlyandconvincinglytestifiedthatvictimEllenVertudazosufferedpsychosis
orinsanityfromwhichsheseemstohaveimprovedduetohertreatmentwhichtreatmentshouldbecontinuousand
maylastfromsixmonthstofiveyearssothatthevictimmaynotsufferfromregressionandthatasofFebruary16,
1995, the date Dr. Go testified, complainant has not fully recovered from her psychosis.40 The qualifying
circumstance of insanity had already attached notwithstanding the recovery of the victim from her illness. The
penaltyofdeathisimposable.
Astothedamagesawarded,thetrialcourterredinawardingthemeresumofP30,000.00tocomplainantascivil
indemnity. Complainant is entitled to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity in accordance with our established rulings in
caseswherethecrimeofrapeiscommitted,qualifiedbyanyofthecircumstancesunderwhichthedeathpenaltyis
authorizedbylaw.41Inthepresentcase,thevictimbecameinsanebyreasonoftherapecommittedagainsther
andinthecommissionofrapewiththeuseofadeadlyweapon,theaggravatingcircumstanceofdwellingispresent.
Actually,thetrialcourthadtwogroundsfortheimpositionofdeathpenalty.
Complainant is likewise entitled to moral damages without need of further proof in the sum of P50,000.00.42The
factthatcomplainanthassufferedthetraumaofmental,physicalandpsychologicalsufferingswhichconstitutethe
basisformoraldamagesistooobvioustostillrequiretherecitalthereofatthetrialbythevictimsincethecourtitself
evenassumesandacknowledgessuchagonyonherpartasagaugeofhercredibility.43
Inaddition,complainantisentitledtotheamountofP25,000.00asandforexemplarydamages44 considering the
aggravatingcircumstanceofdwellingandtotheamountofP25,000.00bywayoftemperatedamages45inlieuof
actual damages, considering that complainant had to undergo psychiatric treatment but was not able to present
proofoftheexpensessheincurredinhertreatment.
ThreemembersoftheCourtmaintaintheirpositionthatR.A.No.7659,insofarasitprescribesthedeathpenalty,is
unconstitutionalhowever,theysubmittotherulingoftheCourt,bymajorityvote,thatthelawisconstitutionaland
thatthedeathpenaltyshouldbeimposedaccordingly.
WHEREFORE, the judgmentofthelowercourtconvictingappellantRonetoDegamo alias "Roy" of qualified rape
andsentencinghimtosufferthepenaltyofDEATHisAFFIRMEDwiththeMODIFICATIONthatappellantisordered
topaycomplainantEllenVertudazotheamountsofSeventyFiveThousandPesos(P75,000.00),ascivilindemnity
FiftyThousandPesos(P50,000.00),asmoraldamagesTwentyFiveThousandPesos(P25,000.00)asexemplary
damagesandTwentyFiveThousandPesos(P25,000.00)astemperatedamages.Costsagainstappellant.
UponthefinalityofthisdecisionandpursuanttoSection25ofR.A.No.7659,amendingArticle83oftheRevised
PenalCode,lettherecordsofthiscasebeforthwithforwardedtotheOfficeofthePresidentofthePhilippinesfor
possibleexerciseofthepardoningpower.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Bellosillo,Puno,Vitug,Panganiban,QuisumbingYnaresSantiago,SandovalGutierrez,Carpio,
AustriaMartinez,Corona,CarpioMorales,Callejo,Sr.andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Id.,pp.21,25and33.
2Id.,pp.31and33.
3TSN,January24,1995,pp.910.
4Id.,pp.14and40.
5Id.,pp.1020.
6Id.,pp.8,2023and50.
7ShefinishedherspecializationinpsychiatryattheUniversityofthePhilippinesPhilippineGeneralHospital

(UPPGH)from19751977andhassincehandledthousandsofpsychiatriccasesandappearedincourtina
number of cases as an expert witness in the field of psychiatry and, admitted by appellant as an expert
witness,TSN,February16,1995,pp.27.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/apr2003/gr_121211_2003.html

7/9

11/10/2016

G.R.No.121211

8Id.,pp.1619.
9TSN,February16,1995,pp.7and16.
10Id.,pp.1921.
11TSN,April4,1995,pp.1770.
12Records,p.163.
13207SCRA135,142(1992).
14Ibid.
15Melovs.People,85Phil.766,769770(1950)Teehankeecase,supra.
16U.S.vs.Mabiral,4Phil.308.
17Peoplevs.Ramos,330SCRA453,458(2000).
18TSN,January24,1995,p.10.
19Peoplevs.Tismo,204SCRA535,554(1991)citingPeoplevs.Soterol,140SCRA400,405(1985)and

Peoplevs.Hacbang,164SCRA441,449450(1988).
20Peoplevs.Ballenas,330SCRA519,534(2000)Peoplevs.Conde,330SCRA645,652(2000).
21TSN,January24,1995,pp.3637.
22Peoplevs.Vitancur,345SCRA414,424(2000).
23Peoplevs.Travero,276SCRA301,313(1997).
24Vitancurcase,supra.
25Ibid.
26Exhibit"C",Records,p.137.
27TSN,April4,1995,pp.78.
28Peoplevs.Mariano,345SCRA1,16(2000).
29Ibid.
30TSN,January24,1995,p.16,3031.
31Entitled"AnActtoImposetheDeathPenaltyonCertainHeinousCrimesamendingforthatpurposethe

RevisedPenalCodeasamended,OtherSpecialPenalLaws,andforOtherPurposes",effectiveDecember
31,1993.
32Rollo,p.67.
33Republicvs.CourtofAppeals,299SCRA199,270(1998).
34Ibid.
35AnActtoAmendArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCode(Re:Rape),effectiveJune18,1960.
36TherewasnodiscussionontheinsanityamendmentintheHouseofRepresentatives.
37CongressionalRecord,Vol.1,No.40,March24,1958,p.573.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/apr2003/gr_121211_2003.html

8/9

11/10/2016

G.R.No.121211

38MarsamanManningAgency,Inc.vs.NLRC,313SCRA88,102(1999).
39Melovs.People,85Phil.766,769770(1950)Teehankeevs.Madayag,supra.
40TSN,February16,1995,pp.1821.
41 People vs. Escano, G.R. No. 14021823, February 13, 2002 People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 142556,

February5,2003.
42Peoplevs.Manlod,G.R.No.14290102,July23,2002.
43Peoplevs.Prades,293SCRA411,430431[1998].
44 People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 14646467, November 15, 2002 People vs. Barcelon, Jr., G.R. No.

144308,September24,2002.
45Peoplevs.Simon,G.R.No.134121,March6,2003Peoplevs.Abrazaldo,G.R.No.124392,February7,

2003.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/apr2003/gr_121211_2003.html

9/9