FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 196315. October 22, 2014.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs.

LEONARDO CATAYTAY y SILVANO, accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J : p

This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-

G.R. CR No. 32275 dated August 11, 2010 affirming the conviction of
accused-appellant Leonardo Cataytay y Silvano for the crime of rape.
Accused-appellant Cataytay was charged of said crime in an
Information dated September 9, 2003:
That on or about the 7th day of September 2003, in the City of
Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs[,] and
by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge [of AAA], 3 19 years
of age but with a mental age of a 5 year old, hence, a retardate, or
demented, which is known to accused at the time of the commission of
the offense, against her will and consent and to her damage and
prejudice. 4

Accused-appellant Cataytay entered a plea of not guilty at his

arraignment on October 3, 2003. Trial thereafter ensued.
BBB (AAA's mother) testified that she knew accused-appellant
Cataytay as her neighbor in their compound in Mandaluyong City. Accused-
appellant was a shoe repairman who had a shop six houses away from BBB's
house. 5
On September 7, 2003, at around 6:30 p.m., BBB left AAA in their
house to look for BBB's youngest daughter. Thirty minutes later, when she
reached the bridge near Block 37, her neighbor, Lito, told her that there was
a problem, and brought her to the barangay outpost. AAA and the accused-
appellant were already at the outpost. Lito told the persons at the outpost
that she was the mother of the victim. When BBB saw AAA, the latter told
h e r , "Mommy, ni-rape po ako." BBB asked her who raped her. AAA
responded by pointing to accused-appellant. During the interviews made by
t h e barangay officials, AAA narrated how she was raped by accused-
appellant, which ended when a certain "Mimi" knocked at the door. When
accused-appellant answered the knock, Mimi told the former that she will
shout if he does not leave the house. AAA went out of the house and sought
help from their neighbors. One of their neighbors, Amelita Morante, called
the barangay officials at the outpost. 6
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 BBB identified a Psychological Evaluation Report from the Department
of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) dated May 25, 1999, which was
conducted in connection with another rape case. The report stated that AAA
had the mental capacity of an eight-year-old child. 7 BBB also identified
AAA's birth certificate which showed that she was biologically 19 years old at
the time of the incident. 8 IcTEAD

On cross-examination, BBB confirmed that AAA was the victim in a rape

case in 1999 against a certain Norberto Lerit. BBB admitted that she did not
personally witness the alleged rape committed by the accused-appellant. 9
When AAA appeared as the second witness for the prosecution, the
prosecution manifested that by merely looking at her, it was apparent that
she was mentally retardate. 10 AAA, who was crying while being asked
questions, testified that she was raped by accused-appellant by inserting his
penis into her, despite her protestations. After the deed, she was given
money by accused-appellant. She knew the accused-appellant before the
incident as a shoe repairman. 11
DSWD Social Worker Arlene Gampal testified that she referred AAA
to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) for psychological
examination. She also conducted a Social Case Study upon AAA in relation to
the incident of sexual abuse at the hands of the accused. 12 NCMH
Psychologist Susan Sabado was presented as a prosecution witness, but
her testimony was dispensed with when the defense agreed to a stipulation
regarding her expertise and that the tests conducted on AAA affirmed that
the latter had a mental capacity of a seven-year-old child. 13
Police Chief Inspector (PC/Insp.) Bonnie Chua, the medico-legal
officer who examined AAA on September 8, 2003 was likewise presented as
a prosecution witness. The defense agreed to a stipulation that the findings
of the examination were consistent with recent sexual intercourse. 14
For the defense, accused-appellant testified that on September 7,
2003, at around 7:00 p.m., he was in his house together with his brother,
feeding his four-year-old daughter. He then went out and proceeded to a
videoke bar, which was around 20 meters from his house. 15 He stayed at
t h e videoke bar for less than 15 minutes, as barangay officers suddenly
arrived and arrested him. Upon asking why he was being arrested, the
officers told him that he was the suspect in the rape of AAA. He was brought
to the Barangay Hall, where he denied the accusations against him. He
estimated that the house of BBB was more or less 50 meters away from his
house, 16 and that it would take more or less a one minute walk from the
videoke bar to the house of AAA. 17 Accused-appellant admitted that by
merely looking at AAA, he could tell that she has a mental disability. 18
Accused-appellant's brother, Jose Fresco Cataytay (Jose) , testified
that at 6:30 p.m. of September 7, 2003, accused-appellant was inside their
house feeding his daughter. At around 7:00 p.m., accused-appellant told Jose
that he will go to the videoke bar, which was around 30 meters away from
their house. Accused-appellant stayed in the videoke bar for 5 to 10
minutes, then went back to their house and watched television. Accused-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 appellant was arrested that night within the vicinity of their house by the
barangay tanods. He estimated that AAA's house is 20 to 30 meters away
from the videoke bar, and that it would take less than five minutes to reach
the house of AAA from the videoke bar. 19
Alicia Panaguitol (Alicia), a neighbor of AAA and accused-appellant,
testified that she lives two meters away from AAA's house and 60 meters
away from that of accused-appellant. She was inside her house at around
7:00 p.m. of September 7, 2003, during which time she heard AAA shouting
that she was raped. She asked AAA who raped her. AAA replied "Pilay,"
apparently referring to their neighbor who was called Jun Pilay. Alicia saw Jun
Pilay run from AAA's house towards a dark area. 20
On February 5, 2009, the RTC rendered its Judgment finding accused-
appellant guilty as charged, and disposing of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, accused
LEONARDO CATAYTAY y SILVANO is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of rape against one [AAA] defined and
penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code
in relation to Article 266-B paragraph 10 of the same Code.

As a consequence thereof, accused LEONARDO CATAYTAY y

SILVANO is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
from TWENTY YEARS (20) and ONE (1) DAY to FORTY (40) YEARS of
reclusion perpetua.
Further, accused LEONARDO CATAYTAY y SILVANO is hereby
ordered to indemnify the victim [AAA], the amount of SEVENTY FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as and by way of moral damages and
SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) by way of exemplary
damages.

Finally, the period of detention of accused LEONARDO CATAYTAY

y SILVANO at the Mandaluyong City Jail is hereby fully credited to his
account. 21

The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed
as CA-G.R. CR No. 32275. On August 11, 2010, the Court of Appeals
rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant appeal is
DENIED. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATIONS that an additional award of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity is granted to the victim and the award of exemplary
damages of P75,000.00 is reduced to P30,000.00. The penalty of
imprisonment to be served is simply reclusion perpetua. 22

Hence, this appeal, where accused-appellant Cataytay adopted his

Appellant's Brief with the Court of Appeals, which contained the following
assignment of errors:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE WAS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED. 23

In his appellant's brief, accused-appellant claims that BBB's testimony

concerning the details of the commission of the rape as narrated by AAA is
hearsay and therefore has no probative value. Accused-appellant also points
out that the Psychological Evaluation Report dated May 25, 1999 and
Psychological Report dated June 29, 2009 illustrate that AAA can be easily
influenced.
At the outset, we agree with accused-appellant that the details
concerning the manner of the commission of the rape, which was merely
narrated by AAA at the barangay outpost, is hearsay and cannot be
considered by this Court. A witness can testify only on the facts that she
knows of his own personal knowledge, or more precisely, those which are
derived from her own perception. 24 A witness may not testify on what she
merely learned, read or heard from others because such testimony is
considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what
she has learned, read or heard. 25
Notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the details of the rape which BBB
merely heard from AAA's narration, we nevertheless find no reason to
disturb the findings of fact of the trial court. Despite lacking certain details
concerning the manner in which AAA was allegedly raped, the trial court,
taking into consideration the mental incapacity of AAA and qualifying her to
be a child witness, 26 found her testimony to be credible and convincing:
Q- Uulitin ko sa iyo 'yung unang tinanong ko sa'yo ha, bakit ka nandito
sa office ni Judge, para ano?

A- Para magsumbong.
Q- Sinong isusumbong mo?

A- Leonardo Cataytay.
INTERPRETER:
Witness at this moment is now crying. TSIDaH

Q- Nandito ba si Leonardo Cataytay, [AAA], nandito ba siya ngayon sa

office ni Judge? Tingin ka sa office ni Judge kung nandito ngayon
si Leonardo, sabi mo isusumbong mo siya kay Judge, diba?
COURT:

Ituro mo nga kung nandiyan siya, sige.

INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to the male person seated in the first row of the
gallery, wearing white t-shirt, who when asked to identify
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 himself, answered to the name of LEONARDO CATAYTAY Y
SILVANO.
PROS. LAZARO:

Q- [AAA], itinuro mo si Leonardo, sabi mo kanina isusumbong mo siya,

bakit mo siya isusumbong, anong ginawa niya sa'yo?

A- Ni-rape po ako.
Q- Ilang beses ka niya ni-rape?

A- Isa lang po.

Q- Papaano ka niya ni-rape?
A- Pinasok niya 'yung ari niya sa akin.

Q- Anong sinabi mo sa kanya 'nung ni-rape ka niya, anong sinabi mo

kay Leonardo?

A- Ayaw ko na po.
Q- Anong sinabi naman ni Leonardo habang nire-rape ka niya?

A- Wag daw po ako maingay.

Q- Kasi pag maingay ka, ano daw ang gagawin sa'yo?
A- Uulitin daw niya po.

Q- Anong sinabi ni Leonardo sa'yo pagkatapos ka niyang ni-rape,

[AAA]? May sinabi sa'yo pagkatapos ka niya ni-rape? Meron o
wala?
A- Wala po.

Q- May binigay sya sa'yo?

A- Opo.
Q- Anong binigay niya? Punasan mo ang luha mo.

A- Pera po.
Q- Alam mo kung magkano?

A- Hindi po. 27

AAA's mental condition may have prevented her from delving into the
specifics of the assault in her testimony almost three years later, unlike the
way she narrated the same when she was asked at the barangay outpost
merely minutes after the incident. However, as we have ruled in a litany of
cases, when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped,
she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed.
Youth and, as is more applicable in the case at bar, immaturity are generally
badges of truth. 28 Furthermore, the report of PC/Insp. Chua that the findings
of the physical examination were consistent with recent sexual intercourse,
provide additional corroboration to the testimonies of AAA and BBB. It should
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 be noted that this report was stipulated upon by the prosecution and the
defense.
We have pronounced time and again that both denial and alibi are
inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible
testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime.
Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one
hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held
to prevail. 29 For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be sufficiently
convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the
presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the
time of the incident. 30 In the case at bar, accused-appellant and his brother,
second defense witness Jose, claim that the former was taking care of his
daughter in his house at around 7:00 p.m. of September 7, 2003. He then
went out and proceeded to a videoke bar, which was merely 20 meters away
from his house. Accused-appellant and his brother admitted that their house
was merely 50 meters away, or around a one-minute walk, from the house of
AAA, where the alleged incident occurred. Accused-appellant was therefore
clearly in the immediate vicinity of the locus criminis at the time of the
commission of the crime, and thus accused-appellant's defense of alibi must
fail.
Other than alibi and denial, accused-appellant presented the testimony
of Alicia, a neighbor of AAA and accused-appellant, to prove that another
person raped AAA. However, the record is clear that AAA positively identified
accused-appellant as the culprit both at the barangay outpost minutes after
the incident, and in open court. It is furthermore axiomatic that when it
comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, great
respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better
position to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and manner of
testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the truth. 31
The trial court, which was able to carefully observe the testimony of Alicia,
was not adequately convinced by her allegations.
To recall, the Information charged accused-appellant of committing the
following act: "by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge [of AAA], 19
years of age but with a mental age of a 5 year old, hence, a retardate, or
demented, which is known to accused at the time of the commission of the
offense, against her will and consent and to her damage and prejudice." 32
The Information, as worded, can conceivably comprehend rape under either
paragraph 1 (b) or 1 (d) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is
committed —
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 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. (Emphasis
supplied)

In People v. Caoile , 33 we differentiated the terms "deprived of reason"

and "demented," as follows:
The term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which
is a condition of deteriorated mentality, characterized by marked
decline from the individual's former intellectual level and often by
emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, the phrase
deprived of reason under paragraph 1 (b) has been interpreted to
include those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or
retardation. Thus, AAA, who was clinically diagnosed to be a mental
retardate, can be properly classified as a person who is "deprived of
reason," and not one who is "demented."

In the case at bar, AAA was clinically diagnosed to have mental

retardation with the mental capacity of a seven-year old child. 34 The
prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate on the conclusion of the
psychologist that the "mental age of the victim whose chronological age at
the time of the commission of the offense is nineteen (19) years old . . . is
that of a seven (7) year old child." 35 Accused-appellant is therefore
criminally liable for rape under paragraph 1 (b) of Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code. The appropriate penalty is provided for by Article 266-B,
which relevantly provides:
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx
10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional
disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of
the commission of the crime.

Since the accused-appellant's knowledge of AAA's mental retardation was

alleged in the Information and admitted by the former during the trial, the
above special qualifying circumstance is applicable, and the penalty of death
should have been imposed. With the passage, however, of Republic Act No.
9 3 4 6 36 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall instead be imposed. DEICHc

The RTC sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of

imprisonment of twenty years and one day to forty years of reclusion
perpetua. The Court of Appeals correctly modified the penalty to be simply
reclusion perpetua. Since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Indeterminate Sentence Law cannot be applied. 37

As regards accused-appellant's civil liability, the RTC ordered him to

pay AAA in the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as
exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court's decision
by granting the additional award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and
reducing the award of exemplary damages to P30,000.00. In accordance,
however, to People v. Lumaho, 38 where the penalty for the crime committed
is death which cannot be imposed because of Republic Act No. 9346, we
increase the amounts of indemnity and damages to be imposed as follows:
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages; and
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. In addition, we impose 6% interest per
annum from finality of judgment until fully paid. 39
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32275 dated August 11, 2010 is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION increasing the amounts of indemnity and
damages to be imposed as follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
P100,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All amounts are furthermore subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Bersamin, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 17-18.
2. Id. at 2-16; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with Associate
Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.
3. The Court withholds the real name of the victim-survivor and uses fictitious
initials instead to represent her. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the
victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or
compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate families or
household members, are not to be disclosed. (See People v. Cabalquinto, 533
Phil. 703 [2006].)

4. Records, p. 1.
5. TSN, April 27, 2004, pp. 3-4.
6. Id. at 4-12.
7. Id. at 7.

8. Id. at 13.
9. TSN, May 25, 2004, pp. 2-14.
10. TSN, June 22, 2004, p. 3.
11. Id. at 6-7, 10.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 12. TSN, December 17, 2004, pp. 3-7.
13. TSN, August 4, 2005, p. 5.
14. TSN, November 14, 2005, pp. 4-5.

15. Accused-appellant stated in the direct examination that the videoke bar was
more than 20 meters away from his house. On cross-examination, he
testified that the videoke bar was more or less 20 meters away from his
house (TSN, November 20, 2006, p. 3).
16. TSN, October 30, 2006, pp. 2-5.
17. TSN, November 20, 2006, p. 4.
18. Id. at 7.

19. TSN, May 24, 2007, pp. 4-9.

20. TSN, March 27, 2008, pp. 2-5.
21. CA rollo, p. 33.
22. Rollo , p. 16.
23. CA rollo, p. 69.

24. Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 36.

25. D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 409 Phil. 275, 285 (2001); Miro v.
Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, G.R. Nos. 172532 & 172544-45, November 20,
2013, 710 SCRA 371, 390.

26. TSN, June 22, 2004, pp. 3-4.

27. Id. at 5-7.
28. See People v. De Guzman, 423 Phil. 313, 331 (2001).
29. People v. Narido , 374 Phil. 489, 508 (1999).
30. People v. Sulima , 598 Phil. 238, 254 (2009).

31. People v. Estoya , G.R. No. 200531, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 376, 383.
32. Records, p. 1.
33. G.R. No. 203041, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 638, 649-650.
34. TSN, August 4, 2005, p. 5; records, p. 126.

35. Id.
36. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
37. People v. Valdez , 363 Phil. 481, 494 (1999).
38. G.R. No. 208716, September 24, 2014, citing People v. Gambao , G.R. No.
172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA 508, 533.
39. Roallos v. People , G.R. No. 198389, December 11, 2013, citing People v.
Veloso, G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 586, 600.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com