G.R. No. 184757 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ANICETO BULAGAO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as charged, and hereby sentences him to suffer: (a) In Crim. Case No. 197-M-01, the penalty of DEATH. The accused is likewise directed to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00; (b) In Crim. Case No. 198-M-01, the penalty of DEATH. The accused is likewise directed to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00. [20] The RTC observed that AAA was in the custody of the DSWD when she testified for the prosecution, and was returned to the family of the accused-appellant after her original testimony. It was during the time when she was back in the custody of the accused-appellant's family that she recanted her testimony for the prosecution. According to the RTC, it is clear that she had no other place to go to as she was completely orphaned and was dependent on the family of the accused, and it was understandable that she may have recanted in order to remain in the good graces of the accused-appellant's family. [21] As regards the defense of accused-appellant that he was suffering from mental retardation, the RTC noted that the psychological examination of accused-appellant was conducted more than a couple of years after the dates of the complained of incidents. There was no showing from the findings of the psychologist that accused-appellant had the same mental or psychological condition at the time of the said incidents. Even assuming that accused-appellant was of such mental state at the time of the incidents, the psychologist testified that accused-appellant had the capacity to discern right from wrong. [22] On April 14, 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming that of the RTC, except with a modification on the penalty in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 13, dated 23 January 2006, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the penalty imposed and damages awarded. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in each of the two (2) counts of rape. He is further directed to pay private complainant the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each count of rape, in addition to the civil indemnity awarded by the court a quo . [23] Hence, accused-appellant interposed the present appeal. Both parties manifested that they are waiving their rights to file a supplemental brief, as the same would only contain a reiteration of the arguments presented in their appellant's and appellee's briefs. [24] In seeking to overturn his conviction, accused-appellant asserted that the prosecution evidence was insufficient, particularly in view of AAA's withdrawal of her original testimony. We have recently held that "[c]ourts look with disfavor up