G.R. No. 222658 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARIO GALIA BAGAMANO,[1] ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua , as well as ordered him to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. [16] In finding Bagamano's guilt, the RTC held that AAA's testimony that Bagamano raped her was trustworthy and should be given credence, especially in light of the corroborative testimonies of her mother and sister. The RTC further noted that no ill motive can be attributed to AAA in imputing liability to Bagamano. [17] Bagamano moved for reconsideration, [18] which was, however, denied in an Order [19] dated April 13, 2012. Aggrieved, he appealed [20] to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [21] dated October 22, 2015, the CA affirmed Bagamano's conviction, with modification increasing the damages awarded to AAA as follows: ( a ) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; ( b ) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and ( c ) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. [22] Agreeing with the RTC, the CA ruled that taking into consideration that AAA is a mental retardate, her positive testimony that Bagamano took advantage of her is credible and trustworthy and, thus, sufficient to convict him of the crime of rape. [23] In this relation, the CA noted AAA's mental retardation in imposing the appropriate penalty on Bagamano. [24] Aggrieved, Bagamano filed the instant appeal. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether Bagamano's conviction for Rape should be upheld. The Court's Ruling The appeal is bereft of merit. At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. [25] As will be explained hereunder, the CA correctly upheld Bagamano's conviction, but erred in taking into consideration AAA's mental retardation. Article 266-A (1) of the RPC reads as follows: ART. 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; 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. x x x x For a charge of Rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC to prosper, the prosecution must prove that: ( a ) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and ( b ) he accomplished this a