For a wrongdoing to make a director personally liable for debts of the corporation, the wrongdoing approved or assented to by the director must be a patently unlawful act. Mere failure to comply with the notice requirement of labor laws on company closure or dismissal of employees does not amount to a patently unlawful act. Patently unlawful acts are those declared unlawful by law which imposes penalties for commission of such unlawful acts. There must be a law declaring the act unlawful and penalizing the act."

Applying the above cited jurisprudence in the case at bar, there being no sufficient and convincing proof that the individual petitioners acted in bad faith or with malice, their being jointly and severally liable with the Corporation, as held by the NLRC, cannot be affirmed.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The 23 April 2009 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby AFFIRMED

with MODIFICATION, such that petitioner Edward T. Marcelo is absolved from personal liability.

So ORDERED.

Abdulwahid and Rosario, JJ., concur.

Petition partially granted. Decision of the NLRC affirmed with modification.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the court.

(SGD.) HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID

Associate Justice

Chairperson, Tenth (10th) Division

[CR HC No. 03129. January 27, 2011]*

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. VICTORIANO ARTIENDA, JR. @"Oko", accused-appellant.

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; AS LONG AS THE WITNESS CAN CONVEY IDEAS BY WORDS OR SIGNS AND GIVE SUFFICIENTLY INTELLIGENT ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED, SHE IS A COMPETENT WITNESS EVEN IF SHE IS A MENTAL RETARDATE.-As to the question on the credibility of Josefa, the case of People vs. Maceda is of the significance. The Supreme Court held in this case that as long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is a mental retardate. Josefa being clinically found to be a mental retardate who was nineteen (19) years old but had mental age of 7-8 years old at the time of the commission of the crime was capable of perceiving and making known such perception.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INCONSISTENCIES NOT AFFECTING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE WITNESS' STATEMENT DO NOT DAMAGE THE ESSENTIAL INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE IN ITS MATERIAL WHOLE NOR REFLECT ADVERSELY ON WITNESS' CREDIBILITY.-The observation of the trial court and a reading of complainant's testimony in its entirety shows that she repeatedly stated what accusedappellant had done to her. It is noteworthy that she has been consistent in her narration of what transpired on the day she was ravished. Dr. Briones also testified on complainant's consistency in her narration when she was interviewed during her mental examination. We observed that only if such testimony is read in parts and the portions thereof are isolated or taken out of context and no allowance is made for complainant's mental condition can accused-appellant's reading of it be justified. Inconsistencies or lapses in her and her mother's testimonies do not affect the substance of her statements. These inconsistencies do not consist of a substantial fact that would affect the result of this case. They do not damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its

Court of Appeals Reports Annotated, Vol. 50

material whole nor reflect adversely on complainant's credibility.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY; RULE ON DISQUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE WITNESS; THOUGH A MENTAL RETARDATE AT THE TIME SHE WAS CALLED TO BE EXAMINED IN COURT, IS CAPABLE OF INTELLIGENTLY MAKING KNOWN WHAT SHE PERCEIVED DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.-Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provide: Sec. 20, Witnesses; their qualifications.— Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive and perceiving can make known their perception to another, may be witnesses. Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity.-The following persons cannot be witnesses: (a) Those whose mental conditions, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; *** The earliermentioned limitations provided for by the Rules of Court as to the qualifications of a witness have no application in the case at bar. Josefa, though a mental retardate at the time she was called to be examined in court, was capable of intelligently making known what she perceived during the commission of the crime of rape. Verily, the trial court did not err in upholding her testimony. The trial court also did not commit any error in upholding the testimony of Josefa Capalad as a witness on the four counts of rape committed against her. As to reiterate the testimony of witness who meets the tests of credibility can alone be sufficient to convict the accused.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ABSENT ANY ILL-MOTIVE ON THE PART OF VICTIM-WITNESS TO FALSELY CHARGE THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME (OF RAPE), THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT, SHE IS TELLING THE TRUTH HENCE, HER TESTIMONY IS ENTITLED TO FULL, PROBATIVE WEIGHT.-It is also noteworthy that the appellant has not adduced any evidence of ill-motive on the part of Josefa to falsely charge him of the heinous crime of rape. He even admitted that their mothers were friends and that Josefa herself is a friend. Absent any illmotive on the part of Josefa to falsely charge the appellant or rape, the presumption is that, she is telling the truth; hence, her testimony is entitled to full

probative weight. It would run counter to the natural order of events and of human nature, and contrary to the presumption of good faith, for a prosecution witnesses to falsely testify if the appellant is truly innocent.

5. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; R.A. NO. 8353 (ANTIRAPE LAW OF 1997); FAILURE OF THE VICTIM TO IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE CRIME OF RAPE COMMITTED DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT SHE WAS RAPED.-As to the issue on the period within which Josefa failed to immediately report to her mother what transpired on the day she was defiled by the accusedappellant. We also agree with the OSG in citing the case of People vs. Umayam where the Supreme Court held that the Court has not prescribed a uniform manner of behavior during and after rape incident. The failure of Josefa to let her mother learn about what happened to her does not change the fact that she was raped. It should not also be taken against her even if she admitted to have frequented accused-appellant's house even after the incident. Let it be remembered, not all women who are mentally, fit who went through a harrowing experienced knew how to handle the same, what more a woman who is a mental retardate having a mentally of a 7 to 9 years old?

6. ID.; ID.; AN ACCUSED CONVICTED OR RAPE .CANNOT BE ORDERED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD OF THE VICTIM UNLESS IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEFORE THE PROPER COURT THAT HE IS INDEED THE FATHER OF THAT CHILD.-Finally, although We are the same view as to the credibility of Josefa as a witness and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, We do not share the same view as to the order of the trial court for the accusedappellant to acknowledge and support the child born by Josefa. The four counts of rape were proven reasonable doubt but this does not prove that accused-appellant is the father of the child born by Josefa. Accordingly, the accused-appellant cannot also be ordered to support the child unless it has been proven before the proper court where it is proved that the accusedappellant is indeed the father of the same child

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Perfecto Laguio, Jr. for accusedappellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

GAERLAN. S.H., J.:

This is an appeal from a Decision1 dated 15 August 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, in Criminal Case No. Z-1535, wherein the accused-appellant was pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Multiple Rape and defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 8353 otherwise known as the AntiRape Law of 1997. The dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused VICTORIANO ARTIENDA, JR., GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE (Four Counts) as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 8353 otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 and despite the presence of a qualified aggravating circumstances of the mental disability of the complainant victim which fact is known to the accused but pursuant to the mandate of Republic Act No. 9346 abolishing the death penalty, hereby SENTENCES him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in each case of RAPE (Four Counts). Also, this Court orders the accused to PAY the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in each and also the amount of P50,000 as moral damages in each count (four counts).

Furthermore, this Court orders the said accused to acknowledge the child and to support the same in accordance with the provisions of the Family Code.

Finally, the period of the preventive imprisonment of the said accused should be credited in his favor. No subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. SO ORDERED."

The Information2 charging accusedappellant of the crime of Rape defined under Article 266-A and penalized by Article 266B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended

1 Rollo, pp. 71-79.

2

Records, p. 28.

"That on or before from August 2002 to December 2002 in Barangay Balansay, Municipality of Mamburao, Province of Occidental Mindoro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named with the use of force and intimidation, being then armed with a knife with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloneously (sic) had carnal knowledge on four (4) occassions (sic) one Josefa Capalad, a demented woman against her will and consent.

That the rapes were committed with the qualified aggravating circumstance of the fact that the accused knows fully well of the mental disability, emotional disorder or physical handicap of the victim at the time of their commission.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "NOT GUILTY" to the charge.

During the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Herminia S. Capalad, mother of the victim, Dr. Maria Arlen G. Briones, the Medical Officer III of the National Center for Mental health; and Josefa Capalad, the victim herself.

The defense on their part, presented two (2) witnesses: Victoriano Artienda, Jr., the accused-appellant himself and Victoriano Artienda, Sr., father of the accusedappellant.

FACTS

Version of the Prosecution3

Sometime in 2002, Josefa Capalad, a nineteenyear-old lass suffering from a mild retardation was forced to go to a mountain by her neighbor, herein appellant Victoriano Artienda, Jr. They went with the latter's sister Dada. It was there in the mountain where appellant raped Josefa four times.

The first raped was when appellant held Josefa in the neck, undressed her, and then had carnal knowledge of her. He did it in front of Dada Josefa tried boxing the appellant but to no avail. Weakened by the abuse, she laid still her palms open, as if in resignation.

Josefa was thereafter raped for the second time in a "patuwad" position. After which appellant abused Josefa again for the third time. The last rape happened when appellant pulled Josefa, held arm and then abused her again.

Josefa kept mum about her ordeal until the time her mother Herminia brough her to Elvira Bo, a "hilot," after Herminia's children advised her to do so because they noticed Josefa's bulging stomach. Subsequently, Herminia brought Josefa to a hospital for an ultrasound, in order to confirm Bos' conclusion that Josefa was pregnant. When her pregnancy was finally confirmed, Herminia prodded Josefa about the identity of the man who impregnated her, but the later refused. After a while, though, Josefa confessed to Bo that it was appellant who raped her. Josefa later identified appellant in a police line-up at the police precinct as the person who abused her.

On May 22, 2003, Josefa gave birth to a baby boy.

Version of the Defense1

The appellant is charged of multiple rape under R.A. 8353, (otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997). The appellant and the private complainant are residents of the same neighborhood, Brgy. Balansay, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. Appellant is the borther of Florente Artienda, who filed in 2000 with the same trial court a criminal case for frustrated murder against Arnold Bo, the son Elvira Bo, a barangay tanod of Brgy. Balansay. The parents of the accused and the private complainant were good friends, and the respective mothers of the former and the latter were kumadres.

The private complainant and the two younger sisters of the appellant were good friends and playmates and the private complainant often went to and played at the appellant's house with the latter's sisters. The private complainant also frequently went with the appellant's siblings and parents in their farm in a nearby mountain, where they have pigs, goats and fruit trees. In several instances, the private complainant was punished by her mother, whom the private complainant went with the family of the appellant to their farm, despite her mother's prohibition.

On one of the private complainant's frequent visits to the house of the appellant's parents, the mother of the appellant noticed the abnormal size of the private-complainant's stomach. Suspecting her to be pregnant, the appellant's mother, (Herminda), of her suspicion, and Herminda in turn brough (sic) her daughter to their barangay official, Elvira Bo, who is also a manghihilot, for examination and Elvira Bo confirmed the private complainant's pregnancy. At this point, the private complainant was questioned by her mother Herminda about the identity of the man who had impregnated her, but she refused and remained silent, despite repeated

3

Rollo, pp. 158-159.

4

Rollo, pp. 98-100.

questioning by her mother. After a while, upon the suggestion of Elvira Bo, the private complainant was left by her mother, Herminda in the room of Elvira Bo, and Herminda waited downstairs. After 15 minutes Elvira Bo told Herminda that her daughter revealed that she was raped by the appellant.

Sometime in March 2002, the appellant together with his father and brother were invited by the police for investigation at the police station, the three were made to line up and the police investigator asked the private complainant to point out the one that raped her, but the private complainant merely looked at the three men for several minutes. Then Elvira Bo learned towards the private complainants and whispered something to her. And when the police investigator again asked the private complainant who raped her, she readily pointed at the appellant.

In the preliminary investigation of this case by MTC of Mamburao, Mindoro, the complaint for multiple rape against the appellant was dismissed on August 1, 2006, for lack of evidence to establish probable cause against the appellant. But the dismissal was set aside by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor on September 10, 2003. And the accused was subsequently arrested and incarcerated. He has been languishing in jail ever since.

The appellant was arraigned and tried, and on August 15, 2007, the trial court rendered its herein assailed decision convicting the appellant of four counts of rape. Hence, this appeal.5

ISSUES

I.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING
THAT THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WAS AN
UNRELIABLE AND UNTRUTHFUL WITNESS.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
FINDING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WAS NOT CLEAR,
POSITIVE, STRAIGHFORWARD, CONVINCING
AND CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN NATURE AND
THE NORMAL COURSE OF THINGS.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SIX MONTHS DELAY IN THE

5 Ibid.

• Rollo, on 97-98.

052379-3

FILING OF THIS CASE BY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AS WELLL AS THE DETAILS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE FILING OF THE CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THE APPELLANT AS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR GIVING CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE ASSERTION THAT A BARANGAY OFFICIAL, ELVIRA BO, HAD INFLUENCED AND MOTIVATED COMPLAINANT TO FABRICATE THE CHARGE OF FOUR COUNTS OF RAPE AGAINST THE APPELLANT.

III.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES OF FOUR COUNTS OF RAPE, DESPITE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

IV.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IS SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL DISORDER; IS RETARDATE AND ALTHOUGH 19 YEARS OLD, HER MENTALITY IS THAT OF A SIX (6 TO NINE (9) YEARS OLD GIRL.

OUR RULING

Appellant now raises as an issue the credibility of Josefa as a witness. He asseverates the trial court in not holding Josefa as an unreliable and untruthful witness. Further, appellant claims that among the three witnesses by the prosecution, only the private complainant was an eyewitness to the crime of four counts of rape allegedly committed by the appellant. Thus, the strength and/or weakness of the prosecution's evidence, therefore, will stand or fall on the sole testimony of the private complainant. In fact, the trial court's finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant will depend entirely upon the private complainant's credibility as a witness. 10 And should there be doubt on the culpability of the appellant, the doubt should be resolved in his favor. 11