66. PEOPLE v. MONTICALVO [G.R. No.

193507 January 30, 2013]

Topic: Suspension in case of Insanity or Minority

ISSUE: Whether a reasonable ground exists in this case for a modification of the penalty (YES)

FACTS:
● In the afternoon of December 9, 2002, AAA (12 years old) and her friend Analiza were in the sari-sari store
of AAA’s mom, BBB. Monticalvo was inside the fence of their house adjacent to said sari sari store. He then
invited AAA to go with him to the kiln (a furnace or oven for burning) at the back of their house.
● Analiza followed them and hid behind a papaya tree. She then saw Monticalvo undressing AAA by removing
the latter’s shorts and panty. The appellant saw Analiza so she just ran away and went back to the sari-sari
store.
● After undressing AAA, he made her lie down, went on top of her and made push and pull movements.
Monticalvo stopped, allowed AAA to sit down for a while and then sent her home.
● When AAA arrived at their house around 7:30PM, BBB asked her where she went and why she came home
late. AAA said that she was at the back of their house as the appellant brought her there to have sexual
intercourse.
● The following day, BBB brought AAA to the police station and the to the Northern Samar Provincial Hospital
where she was examined by Dr. Nochete. The findings were:
○ Complete healed hymenal lacerations
○ No trace of spermatozoa
● AAA was also examined by psychiatrist Dr. Belicena and found that AAA is suffering from moderate to
severe mental retardation (below average intelligence, low reproductive functioning resulting in impaired
functioning)
● Appellant denied having raped AAA. His alibi was that he was at his friend’s house drinking until 6:00PM. He
was too drunk that he just went home to sleep and only woke up again at 12MN to urinate. He went back to
sleep and woke up at 6AM the next morning. This was corroborated by his friends and his father.
● Monitcalvo also disclosed that his friend’s house where they were drinking was just more or less 6m away
from AAA’s house and that he knew that she was suffering from mental abnormalities.
● Another defense witness also presented Monitcalvo’s Certificate of Live Birth to prove that the latter was
only 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime.
● Trial court found Rey Monticalvo y Magno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape of a
demented person and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify AAA in the amount
of Php 50,000 as civil indemnity, Php 50,000 as moral damages and Php 25,000 as exemplary damages.
● Appellant’s defense
○ Inconsistencies (yung friend sabi hapon nangyari yung crimie, yung nanay sabi gabi) ✖
○ Impossible that the lacerations on her vagina were completely healed after just less than 24 hurs
from the alleged rape ✖
○ Being a mental retardate, AAA shouldn’t be given credibility since she isn’t capable of making her
perception known to others She also may be easily coached on what to say ✖
○ Given his minority, the court should have considered it as a privileged mitigating circumstance in
imposing the penalty against him ✔
● Art. 266-A(1) RPC, as amended by RA 8353, provides for 2 circumstances when carnal knowledge of a
woman with mental disability is considered rape:
○ Subparagrap B: rape of a person deprived of reason -- those suffering from mental abnormality,
deficiency or retardation
○ Subparagraph D: rape of a demented person -- those suffering from dementia, a form of mental
disorder in which cognitive and intellectual functions of the mind are prominently affected
● The herein crime is punishable under subparagraph B and not D
● For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that the offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman through any of the four enumerated circumstances in Art. 266-A (1). Proof of force or intimidation is
not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be
proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of
the latter.
● Despite her mental condition, she was able to straightforwardly narrate before the court the events that
happened on December 9. She also positively identified the appellant. Mental retardation per se doesn’t
affect credibility.
● With regards to the inconsistencies in the testimonies of BBB and Analiza, these are minor matters which
are irrelevant to the elements of the crime and cannot be grounds for acquittal.

RULING:
●
● Under Article 266-B in relation to Article 266-A(1) of the RPC, as amended, simple rape is punishable by
reclusion perpetua. However, when rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim’s
mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death. But this circumstance must be alleged in the
information being a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty to death and changes the nature of
the offense from simple rape to qualified rape.
○ In the case at bench, while appellant categorically admitted that he knew AAA suffers from mental
abnormalities, the prosecution failed to allege this fact in the information. Even if it was proved, it
cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
● A reasonable ground exists in this case that calls for the modification of the penalty of reclusion perpetua
imposed by the lower court on Monticalvo
● At the time of the commission of the crime, appellant was only 17 years old, a minor. Thus, he is entitled to
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68(2) of the RPC, as amended.
○ Applying the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the proper imposable penalty upon
appellant is reclusion temporal, being the penalty next lower to reclusion perpetua -- the penalty
prescribed by law for simple rape. Being a divisible penalty, ISL is applicable.
○ The indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, should be imposed Monticalvo.
● However, on 20 May 2006, RA 9344, otherwise known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,"
took effect. Sec. 68 thereof specifically provides for its retroactive application. RA 9344 is applicable in this
case even though the crime was committed 4 years prior to its enactment and effectivity.
● Sec. 38 RA 9344 warrants the suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law notwithstanding that
he/she has reached the age of majority at the time the judgment of conviction is pronounced.
● However, while Sec. 38 provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict
with the law is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Sec. 40 of
the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the said child reaches the maximum age of 21.
○ At present, Monticalvo is already 27 years of age, and the judgment of the trial court was
promulgated prior to the effectivity of RA 9344. Therefore, the application of Secs. 38 and 40 is
already moot and academic.
● (NOT REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE TOPIC PERO JUST IN CASE LANG) To give meaning to the
legislative intent of RA 9344, the promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law should extend
even to one who has exceeded the age limit of 21 years, so long as he/she committed the crime when
he/she was still a child. The offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and
reintegration in accordance with RA 9344 in order that he/she is given the chance to live a normal life and
become a productive member of the community. Monticalvo, therefore, shall be entitled to appropriate
disposition under Section 51 of RA 9344, which provides for the confinement of convicted children as
follows:
○ A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve
his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and
other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the
BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
● Premises considered, the decision of the CA is MODIFIED as follows:
○ appellant is found guilty of rape under subparagraph (b) of Art. 266-A( I) of the RPC, as amended,
and not under subparagraph (d)
○ In view of the privileged mitigating circumstance appreciated in favor of appellant the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is reduced to reclusion temporal and being a divisible penalty, the
Indeterminate Sentence Law applies and the indeterminate penalty of I 0 years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is
imposed upon the appellant;
○ The amount of exemplary damages awarded by the lower courts is increased from P25,000.00 to
P30,000.00. The award of civil indemnity and moral damages both in the amount of P50,000.00 are
maintained.
○ This case, however, shall be REMANDED to the court a quo for appropriate disposition in
accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344.