People Vs Efren Castillo

People vs.
Efren Castillo
G.R. No. 186533, August 9, 2010
Facts:
In March 2000, AAA approached the appellant, Efren Castillo, in order to collect his debt
for the rice cake he bought from her mother. Instead of settling his account, the appellant
cuddled AAA made her lie down on the bed and removed her short pants and panty. The
appellant subsequently removed his pants and underwear and inserted his penis into AAA’s
vagina. AAA’s experience was repeated when she was on her way to visit her aunt’s
house. The appellant, who was then standing by the mango grove, approached AAA, walked
along with her and led her to a nearby chapel, undressed AAA and successfully had sexual
intercourse with her. Thereafter, AAA told her mother, BBB, what the appellant did to her.

Efren Castillo was charged by AAA, assisted by her mother, BBB, with the crime of rape.
At the pre-trial conference, both the prosecution and the defense failed to make any
stipulation of facts. The prosecution presented the following witnesses: AAA, the private
offended party; Dr. Thessa Marie Antillon-Malimas (Dr. Antillon-Malimas), the doctor in Gingoog
District Hospital who examined AAA. BBB, the mother of AAA, was also presented as rebuttal
witness and Myrna delos Reyes-Villanueva, the Guidance Psychologist at the Northern
Mindanao Medical Center who conducted psychological tests on AAA to determine her mental
capacity.
Based on testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution established that AAA was 18
years old when she was raped by the appellant. She was not able to finish her Grade I level
primarily because of her epileptic seizures which started when she was nine years old. AAA
had difficulty following instructions given to her at home and in school.
Dr. Antillon-Malimas examined AAA and discovered that she was actually
raped. Subsequently, AAA executed her sworn statement before Senior Police Officer 4 Myrna
Z. Palad (SPO4 Palad), the investigator at Gingoog City Police Station.

AAA was also subjected to psychological tests to determine her mental capacity. Myrna
Delos Reyes-Villanueva concluded that AAA is suffering from mild to moderate mental
retardation with a mental age of 8 to 12 years old and can be educated up to Grade VI
level. She also noted that AAA lacked personal hygiene and has a vague concept of big
numbers and time, like days of the week. She further declared that AAA’s instinct to resist any
sexual assault is always there, however, with her low-level mental functioning she could easily
be deceived or persuaded by a man to engage into sexual intercourse. The result of AAA’s
psychological tests was also reduced into writing as evidenced by a Psychological Report.

The appellant denied having raped AAA, however RTC still convicted him and CA
affirmed.
On appeal, appellant contended that the records are bereft of any evidence that would
conclusively show that AAA was suffering from mental retardation.
BBB’s declaration that AAA is a slow thinker does not sufficiently establish AAA’s mental
retardation. Further, the expert witness qualification of the prosecution’s supposed expert
witness is highly questionable because she had not acquired any doctorate degree in the field
of psychology or psychiatry. More so, the psychological tests administered by her on AAA were
inadequate to establish AAA’s mental capacity.
Appellant anchors his argument for acquittal on the alleged failure of the prosecution to
establish AAA’s mental retardation to make him guilty of rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(b), of
the Revised Penal Code. Appellant concludes that his guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Issue:
Whether CA gravely erred in finding that AAA is a mental retardate thus erred in
determining the guilt of the appellant.
Held:
No, CA did not err in finding that AAA is a mental retardate despite the failure of the
prosecution to prove such mental retardation. The Court held that mental retardation can be
proven by evidence other than medical or clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses
and even the observation by the trial court.
Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence explicitly provides that the
opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the
mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
Accordingly, it is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or
mental condition of a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the
speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in question. Commonly, it is required that
the witness details the factors and reasons upon which he bases his opinion before he can
testify as to what it is.
The mother of an offended party in a rape case, though not a psychiatrist, if she knows
the physical and mental condition of the party, how she was born, what she is suffering from,
and what her attainments are, is competent to testify on the matter. Even though the Guidance
Psychologist who examined AAA may not qualify as an expert witness, such circumstance is
not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. It bears stressing that the deprivation of reason
contemplated by law need not be complete, rather, mental abnormality or deficiency is
sufficient.
It is therefore clear from the foregoing that AAA’s impaired learning capacity, lack of
personal hygiene and difficulty in answering simple questions, as testified to by her mother and
the Guidance Psychologist who had an opportunity to observe her appearance, manner, habits
and behavior, are indicative that she is truly suffering from some degree of mental retardation.
AAA’s straightforward testimony, as well as her unwavering and positive identification of

the appellant as her defiler and tormentor, corroborated by the medical findings conducted by
Dr. Antillon-Malimas, was sufficient to convict the appellant.
The flimsy and self-serving defenses of denial and alibi of the appellant failed to destroy
the truthfulness and the credibility of AAA’s testimony. Hence, appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

People Vs Efren Castillo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Efren Castillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

AAA’s straightforward testimony, as well as her unwavering and positive identification of

You might also like