Scribd
Upload
95 views2 pages

People vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 200793, June 4, 2014 (Imbecility)

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Roxas for raping his 9-year old niece five times between 1997-1998. While Roxas claimed a mental age of 9-10, the Court said criminal liability is based on chronological age, which was 18. The Court also found the victim's testimony credible, as she recounted her ordeal in a logical, straightforward manner without inconsistencies, and identified Roxas positively as the rapist. The Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that Roxas failed to prove he was exempt from criminal liability.

Uploaded by

Eugene Flores
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
95 views2 pages

People vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 200793, June 4, 2014 (Imbecility)

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Roxas for raping his 9-year old niece five times between 1997-1998. While Roxas claimed a mental age of 9-10, the Court said criminal liability is based on chronological age, which was 18. The Court also found the victim's testimony credible, as she recounted her ordeal in a logical, straightforward manner without inconsistencies, and identified Roxas positively as the rapist. The Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that Roxas failed to prove he was exempt from criminal liability.

Uploaded by

Eugene Flores
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People vs. Roxas, G.R. No.

200793, June 4, 2014 (Imbecility)


Facts:

Five Informations were filed against accused-appellant Roxas, charging him as follows:

On 16 September 1997, [AAA], who was then 9 years of age, was at her grandmother [CCC]'s house
located on [XXX], Quezon City.  In the morning of said date, she was at the dirty kitchen with her aunt
[ZZZ] who was then washing clothes.  Her aunt asked... her if she had already taken a bath, she replied in
the negative.

Her uncle, accused-appellant, overheard their conversation so he volunteered to give [AAA] a bath. 
Subsequently, he brought her upstairs to the bathroom.

While inside the bathroom, accused-appellant told [AAA] to turn around.  After she complied with his
directive, he blindfolded her.  [AAA] started to wonder what the accused-appellant was doing so she
told him that he was supposed to give her a bath. 

Accused-appellant told her that they would play first for a while.

He turned her around three (3) times and then, removed her shorts and underwear.  After that, he sat
on a chair, which was inside the bathroom, and raised both of her legs.

Thereafter, she felt him on top of her.  She also felt accused-appellant's penis enter her vagina which she
found painful.

She cried and shouted the name of her aunt, but accused-appellant got angry and poked a sharp
instrument on her neck.  [AAA] did not report the incident because accused-appellant threatened to cut
her tongue and to kill her and her mother.

[AAA] was raped again on 20 March 1998 while she was at the same house of her paternal
grandparents.

Another incident of rape took place on 11 May 1998 while [AAA] was again at her paternal
grandparents' house.  On the said date, she was alone in the living room on the second floor of the
house when accused-appellant called her.  She did not accede to his... bidding because she was scared
of him.

[AAA]'s ordeal did not stop there.  She was raped for the fourth time on 28 July 1998 at her paternal
grandparents' house.  She and the accused were incidentally alone in the living room on the second
floor of the house.  He asked her to go with him inside... the bedroom of her grandparents, but she did
not get up from her seat.  So accused-appellant pulled her toward the bedroom.  She tried to free
herself, but he poked a pointed instrument at her.

The fifth and last incident of rape happened on 09 August 1998.  At that time, [AAA] was at the terrace
on the second floor of her paternal grandparents' house; and accused-appellant also happened to be
there.

The RTC of Quezon City rendered its Judgment on December 11, 2007, finding accused-appellant Roxas
guilty as charged in each of the five Informations filed against him.
The RTC held that accused-appellant Roxas is not exempt from criminal responsibility on the ground that
he cannot be considered a minor or an imbecile or insane person, since Dr. Aglipay merely testified that
he was an eighteen-year old with a mental development comparable to... that of children between nine
to ten years old.  The RTC found the testimony of AAA credible, and found the testimonies of the
defense witnesses to be "flimsy."

Issue:

- Whether or not CA GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY

Ruling:

Accused-appellant Roxas claims that the testimony of AAA is replete with inconsistencies and narrations
that are contrary to common experience, human nature and the natural course of things.[16]  Accused-
appellant Roxas likewise points out that under

Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, minors fifteen (15) years old and
below are exempt from criminal responsibility.  Accused-appellant Roxas claims that since he has a
mental age of nine years old, he should also be "exempt from criminal... liability although his
chronological age at the time of the commission of the crime was already eighteen years old."

In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability, Section 6 clearly refers to the age
as determined by the anniversary of one's birth date, and not the mental age as argued by accused-
appellant Roxas.  When the law is clear and free from any doubt or... ambiguity, there is no room for
construction or interpretation.  Only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court
interpret or construe its true intent.

On the matter of the credibility of AAA, we carefully examined AAA's testimony and found ourselves in
agreement with the assessment of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.  As observed by the
appellate court:

We note that she recounted her ordeal in a logical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner,
without any artificialities or pretensions that would tarnish the veracity of her testimony.  She recalled
the tragic experience and positively identified... accused-appellant as the one who ravished her on five
occasions.  Her testimony was unshaken by a grueling cross-examination and there is no impression
whatsoever that the same is a mere fabrication.  For her to come out in the open and publicly describe
her harrowing... experience at a trial can only be taken as a badge of her sincerity and the truth of her
claims.

You might also like