Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 168932 October 19, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CHRLIE !UTIONG, Defenant-Appellant.
D ! " I S I O N
!ERSMIN, J.:
This case involves a #an $ho ha se%ual inte&cou&se $ith a $o#an $ho, althou'h () *ea&s of
a'e, $as a #ental &eta&ate $ith the #entalit* of a si%- to seven-*ea& ol.
The #an, "ha&lie +ution', see,s the &evie$ an &eve&sal of the -u'#ent p&o#ul'ate on Ma*
./, (001,
.
$he&eb* the "ou&t of Appeals 2"A3 affi&#e his conviction fo& &ape hane o$n b*
the Re'ional T&ial "ou&t 2RT"3, +&anch (1/, in Pa&a4a5ue "it*, fo& $hich he $as i#pose
&eclusion pe&petua. 6e insists that the State i not ul* establish that the $o#an ha been a
#ental &eta&ate.
The &eco&s sho$ that +ution' ha been a&&ai'ne an t&ie une& an info&#ation that alle'e7
%%%%
That on o& about the 8th a* of Octobe& .))/, in the "it* of Pa&a4a5ue, Philippines an $ithin
the -u&isiction of this 6ono&able "ou&t, the above-na#e accuse, i then an the&e $illfull*,
unla$full* an feloniousl* have ca&nal ,no$le'e of the co#plainant 9AAA:, a #ental &eta&ate,
a'ainst he& $ill an consent.
"ONTRAR; TO <A=.
(
Anteceents
In the evenin' of Octobe& 8, .))/, AAA,
>
then a ()-*ea&-ol #ental &eta&ate, $as invite b*
+ution', he& lon'-ti#e nei'hbo&, to 'o ove& to his house because he $oul 'ive he& so#ethin'.
AAA obli'e. 6e loc,e the oo& as soon as she ha steppe insie his house, an then too, off
his sho&ts an the sho&ts of AAA. 6e le he& to the sofa, $he&e he ha ca&nal ,no$le'e of he&.
AAA &e#e#be&e that she then felt pain in he& abo#en an beca#e an'&* at hi# fo& $hat he
ha one.
?
@pon &eachin' ho#e, AAA fo&th$ith tol he& ole& siste& $hat ha happene. 6e& siste& b&ou'ht
AAA to the police station,
1
an late& on to the National +u&eau of Investi'ation 2N+I3, $he&e AAA
une&$ent a #eico-le'al e%a#ination b* D&. A&#ie M. So&eta-@#il. The #eico-le'al
e%a#ination &eveale that AAAAs h*#en $as intact but Bistensible an its o&ifice $ie 2(.1 c#s.
in ia#ete&3 as to allo$ co#plete penet&ation b* an ave&a'e-siCe ault Filipino #ale o&'an in
full e&ection $ithout p&oucin' an* 'enital in-u&*.B
D
Noticin' AAAAs iso&ientation an incohe&ence,
D&. So&eta-@#il eno&se he& to the N+I Ps*chiat&ic Section fo& evaluation.
8
AAA also une&$ent
a se&ies of ps*cholo'ical tests at the National Mental 6ospital. The tests inclue the RavenAs
P&o'&essive Mat&ices Test, +ene& Visual Moto& Eestalt Test, an D&a$ a Pe&son Test. A
Ro&schach Ps*cho-Dia'nostic Test $as not use because AAA $as not able to ans$e&.
/
Anothe&
test, the Sac,As Sentence "o#pletion Test, $as not use because of AAAAs inabilit* to co#pl*
$ith the inst&uctions.
)
The &esults of the ps*cholo'ical tests sho$e that she ha a #il level of
#ental &eta&ation, an that he& #ental a'e $as that of a chil a'e f&o# si% to seven *ea&sF she
$as una$a&e of $hat $ent on a&oun he& an $as inte&este onl* in '&atif*in' he& o$n nees.
.0
The Defense p&esente onl* one $itness in the pe&son of D&. Nativia Da*an, $ho# it offe&e
as an e%pe&t ps*cholo'ist. She conclue that the RavenAs P&o'&essive Mat&ices Test an the
+ene& Visual Moto& Eestalt Test a#iniste&e on AAA $e&e un&eliable fo& ete&#inin' the
e%istence of #ental &eta&ation. She base he& conclusion on Ga#es Mo&iConAs DSM-? Mae
!as*7 The "linicianAs Euie fo& Dia'nosis, an Ga* Sis,inAs "opin' =ith Ps*chiat&ic an
Ps*cholo'ical Testi#on*.
..
Acco&in' to he&, an iniviuall* a#iniste&e intelli'ence test, li,e the
Sta#p Intelli'ence Scale o& the =eschle& Ault Intelli'ence Scale, as $ell as p&o-ective
techni5ues, li,e the Ro&schach Ps*choia'nostic Test an the The#atic Pe&ception Test, shoul
have been instea a#iniste&e to app&op&iatel* ete&#ine AAAAs #ental a'e.
.(
R"#$%& o' t(e RTC
The RT" &ene&e -u'#ent finin' +ution' 'uilt* of &ape, viC7
=6!R!FOR!, the p&osecution havin' been able to p&ove the 'uilt of the accuse "6AR<I!
+@TIONE be*on &easonable oubt of the c&i#e of si#ple RAP! efine an punishable une&
A&t. (DD-A pa&. . in &elation to A&t. (DD-+ pa&. . of the Revise Penal "oe as a#ene b* R.A.
/>1>, accuse "6AR<I! +@TIONE is he&eb* sentence to suffe& the penalt* of R!"<@SION
P!RP!T@A.
Pu&suant to the e%istin' -u&isp&uence, accuse "6AR<I! +@TIONE is fu&the& o&e&e to
ine#nif* the p&ivate co#plainant, AAA, the a#ount of P10,000.00 as civil ine#nit*, P10,000.00
as #o&al a#a'es an P(1,000.00 as an b* $a* of e%e#pla&* a#a'es.
No p&onounce#ent as to costs.
SO ORD!R!D.
.>
The RT" note that nothin' in D&. Da*anAs testi#on* on the un&eliabilit* of the tests a#iniste&e
on AAA $oul invaliate the finin's of ps*cholo'ist Ni#ia e EuC#an an D&. Diana e "ast&o,
both of the National "ente& fo& Mental 6ealth, to the effect that AAA ha #il level &eta&ation
$ith a #ental a'e of a si%- to seven-*ea& ol pe&sonF an that such finin's $e&e a#issible an
ha #o&e than sufficientl* co#plie $ith the &e5ui&e histo&ical an ph*sical e%a#ination fo&
ete&#inin' AAAAs #ental conition. The t&ial -u'e hi#self hel,
.?
base on his pe&sonal
obse&vation of AAA as a $itness in cou&t, that she $as a &eta&ate $ho coul na&&ate $hat ha
t&anspi&e albeit $ith so#e ifficult* about ho$ she ha been se%uall* abuse. 6e consie&e
AAA as a co#petent $itness $hose behavio& an appea&ance #anifeste no possibilit* fo& he& to
concoct a sto&* of he& eflo&ation at the hans of the accuse.
R"#$%& o' t(e C
+ution' appeale, but the "A affi&#e the conviction on Ma* ./, (001,
.1
to $it7
In su#, the "ou&t sees no co'ent &eason to epa&t f&o# the $ell-ent&enche oct&ine that the t&ial
cou&tAs assess#ent of the c&eibilit* of $itnesses is acco&e '&eat &espect because of its
oppo&tunit* to hea& thei& testi#onies an obse&ve thei& e#eano& an #anne& of testif*in'.
Absent an* sho$in' that the t&ial cou&t ove&loo,e o& #isapp&eciate so#e facts o&
ci&cu#stances of $ei'ht an substance $hich $oul affect the &esult of the case, the "ou&t sees
no &eason to alte& the finin's of the t&ial cou&t.
=6!R!FOR!, the appeale Decision ate Feb&ua&* (?, (00> is affi&#e in toto.
SO ORD!R!D.
The "A consie&e the StateAs evience sufficient to suppo&t the conclusion that AAA $as
#entall* &eta&e. It conclue that the StateAs e%pe&t $itness ps*cholo'ist e EuC#an ha not
onl* inte&vie$e AAA an a &elative of AAA but ha also a#iniste&e a se&ies of tests on AAA
upon $hich to base he& finin's about AAAAs #ental conitionF that the &esults of the ps*chiat&ic
e%a#ination one b* D&. e "ast&o, as $ell as the t&ial -u'eAs pe&sonal obse&vation that AAA
$as a #ental &eta&ate suppo&te the finin's of ps*cholo'ist e EuC#anF an that AAA coul
not le'all* 'ive he& consent to the se%ual act, as hel in People v. Astu&ias,
.D
because the clinical
finin's sho$e he& #entalit* to be at pa& $ith that of a si%- o& seven-*ea&-ol.
The "A &e-ecte +ution'As a&'u#ent that &ape $as not establishe because no se#en ha been
ta,en f&o# AAA, st&essin' that the fact of &ape epene not on the p&esence of spe&#atoCoa
but on the fact of unla$ful penet&ation of the fe#ale 'enitalia b* the #ale o&'an, $hich the State
a#pl* p&ove.
I))"e)
In this appeal, +ution' sub#its that7
I
T6! TRIA< "O@RT !RR!D IN R@<INE T6AT PROOF OF T6! DAT! OF T6!
"OMMISSION OF T6! OFF!NS! IS NOT N!"!SSAR; IN ORD!R TO "ONVI"T T6!
A""@S!D-APP!<<ANT.
II
T6! TRIA< "O@RT !RR!D IN FINDINE T6AT T6! OFF!ND!D PART; IS A M!NTA<
R!TARDAT!.
III
T6! TRIA< "O@RT !RR!D IN R@<INE T6AT A M!NTA< R!TARDAT! IS IN T6!
SAM! "<ASS AS A =OMAN D!PRIV!D OF R!ASON OR OT6!R=IS!
@N"ONS"IO@S.
Anent the fi&st assi'ne e&&o&, +ution' contens that the State i not establish &ape because
the&e $as no evience sho$in' the e%act ate $hen the &ape occu&&e. @ne& the secon
assi'ne e&&o&, he isputes the RT"As conclusion that AAA $as a #ental &eta&ate b* focusin'
on the inconclusiveness of the finin's of ps*cholo'ist e EuC#an b&ou'ht about b* he& failu&e
to asce&tain AAAAs pe&sonal histo&* an b* he& co#putin' AAAAs #ental a'e upon inaccu&ate an
unve&ifie info&#ation. 6e notes that t$o othe& ph*sicians $ho ha e%a#ine AAA, one f&o# the
N+I an the othe& f&o# the National "ente& fo& Mental 6ealth, $e&e not p&esente as $itnesses.
6e insists on his innocence, an e#phasiCes the testi#on* of D&. Da*an on the un&eliabilit* of
the tests a#iniste&e on AAA. 6e #aintains that the un&eliabilit* of the tests a#iniste&e on
AAA fo& ete&#inin' the p&esence of #ental &eta&ation shoul be app&eciate in his favo& in
acco&ance $ith People v. "a&tuano, G&.,
.8
$hich &e5ui&e that a ia'nosis of #ental &eta&ation
shoul be #ae afte& a tho&ou'h evaluation base on histo&*, an ph*sical an labo&ato&*
e%a#inations b* a clinician. <astl*, he posits that the State i not establish the ele#ents of &ape,
consie&in' that a #ental &eta&ate 5ualifie neithe& as a B$o#an ep&ive of &easonB no& as Ba
$o#an une& t$elve *ea&s of a'eB as p&ovie une& A&ticle (DD-A pa&. .2b3 no& of pa&. .23 of
the Revise Penal "oe.
Rulin'
=e affi&# the conviction.
I
!%act ate of &ape an absence of spe&#atoCoa
f&o# victi#As 'enitalia a&e not ele#ents of &ape
+ution' a&'ues that the State i not ul* establish the fact of &ape because the e%act ate of the
incient $as inete&#inate, an because no spe&#atoCoa $as foun in AAAAs 'enital o&'an.
The a&'u#ent ese&ves no consie&ation.
The "A full* ebun,e the a&'u#ent on the e%act ate of the &ape not bein' establishe b*
si#pl* 5uotin' f&o# AAAAs testi#on* that the &ape ha occu&&e on Octobe& 8, .))/.
./
=e nee
to e#phasiCe, ho$eve&, that the ate of the &ape nee not be p&ecisel* p&ove consie&in' that
ate is not an ele#ent of &ape.
.)
No& i the absence of spe&#atoCoa f&o# the 'enitalia of AAA ne'ate o& isp&ove the &ape.
(0
The
basic ele#ent of &ape is ca&nal ,no$le'e o& se%ual inte&cou&se, not e-aculation.
(.
"a&nal
,no$le'e is efine as Bthe act of a #an havin' se%ual boil* connections $ith a
$o#an.B
((
This e%plains $h* the sli'htest penet&ation of the fe#ale 'enitalia consu##ates the
&ape. As such, a #e&e touchin' of the e%te&nal 'enitalia b* the penis capable of consu##atin'
the se%ual act al&ea* constitutes consu##ate &ape.
(>
People v. "a#puhan
(?
has ai#e to
&e#ove an* confusion as to the e%tent of Btouchin'B in &ape7
9T:ouchin' $hen applie to &ape cases oes not si#pl* #ean #e&e epie&#al contact, st&o,in'
o& '&aCin' of o&'ans, a sli'ht b&ush o& a sc&ape of the penis on the e%te&nal la*e& of the victi#As
va'ina, o& the #ons pubis, as in this case. The&e #ust be sufficient an convincin' p&oof that the
penis inee touche the labias o& sli into the fe#ale o&'an, an not #e&el* st&o,e the e%te&nal
su&face the&eof, fo& an accuse to be convicte of consu##ate &ape. As the labias, $hich a&e
&e5ui&e to be BtoucheB b* the penis, a&e b* thei& natu&al situs o& location beneath the #ons
pubis o& the va'inal su&face, to touch the# $ith the penis is to attain so#e e'&ee of penet&ation
beneath the su&face, hence, the conclusion that touchin' the labia #a-o&a o& the labia #ino&a of
the puenu# constitutes consu##ate &ape.
The puenu# o& vulva is the collective te&# fo& the fe#ale 'enital o&'ans that a&e visible in the
pe&ineal a&ea, e.'., #ons pubis, labia #a-o&a, labia #ino&a, the h*#en, the clito&is, the va'inal
o&ifice, etc. The #ons pubis is the &oune e#inence that beco#es hai&* afte& pube&t*, an is
instantl* visible $ithin the su&face. The ne%t la*e& is the labia #a-o&a o& the oute& lips of the
fe#ale o&'an co#pose of the oute& conve% su&face an the inne& su&face. The s,in of the oute&
conve% su&face is cove&e $ith hai& follicles an is pi'#ente, $hile the inne& su&face is a thin
s,in $hich oes not have an* hai& but has #an* sebaceous 'lans. Di&ectl* beneath the labia
#a-o&a is the labia #ino&a. Gu&isp&uence ictates that the labia #a-o&a #ust be ente&e fo& &ape
to be consu##ate, an not #e&el* fo& the penis to st&o,e the su&face of the fe#ale o&'an.
Thus, a '&aCin' of the su&face of the fe#ale o&'an o& touchin' the #ons pubis of the puenu#
is not sufficient to constitute consu##ate &ape. Absent an* sho$in' of the sli'htest penet&ation
of the fe#ale o&'an, i.e., touchin' of eithe& labia of the puenu# b* the penis, the&e can be no
consu##ate &apeF at #ost, it can onl* be atte#pte &ape, if not acts of
lasciviousness.
(1
9e#phasis supplie:
That AAAAs &ecollection on the &ape $as co&&obo&ate b* the &esults of the #eico-le'al
e%a#ination $as sufficient p&oof of the consu##ation of &ape. =e have &ule that &ape can be
establishe b* the sole testi#on* of the victi# that is c&eible an untainte $ith se&ious
unce&taint*.
(D
=ith #o&e &eason is this t&ue $hen the #eical finin's suppo&te the testi#on* of
the victi#,
(8
li,e he&ein.
II
Rape $as co##itte because AAA
$as a #ental &eta&ate
One of +ution'As contentions is that havin' se%ual inte&cou&se $ith AAA, a #ental &eta&ate, i
not a#ount to a &ape, because it coul not be consie&e as ca&nal ,no$le'e of a $o#an
ep&ive of &eason o& of a fe#ale une& t$elve *ea&s of a'e as p&ovie une& A&ticle (DD-A of
the Revise Penal "oe, as a#ene.
The contention cannot be sustaine.
Rape is essentiall* a c&i#e co##itte th&ou'h fo&ce o& inti#iation, that is, a'ainst the $ill of the
fe#ale. It is also co##itte $ithout fo&ce o& inti#iation $hen ca&nal ,no$le'e of a fe#ale is
alle'e an sho$n to be $ithout he& consent. This une&stanin' of the co##ission of &ape has
been p&evalent in both the co##on la$ an the statuto&* la$ s*ste#s. As "o&pus Gu&is
Secunu# has su##e up7
(/
At co##on la$ &ape coul be co##itte onl* $he&e the unla$ful ca&nal ,no$le'e of a fe#ale
$as ha $ithout he& consent o& a'ainst he& $illF lac, of consent $as an essential ele#ent of the
offenseF an the&e can be no &ape in the co##on-la$ sense $ithout the ele#ent of lac, of
consent. @ne& the statutes punishin' the offense, an essential ele#ent of the c&i#e of &ape is
that the act $as co##itte $ithout the consent of the fe#ale, o&, as it is othe&$ise e%p&esse,
a'ainst he& $ill. The act of se%ual inte&cou&se is a'ainst the fe#aleAs $ill o& $ithout he& consent
$hen, fo& an* cause, she is not in a position to e%e&cise an* -u'#ent about the #atte&.
"a&nal ,no$le'e of the fe#ale $ith he& consent is not &ape, p&ovie she is above the a'e of
consent o& is capable in the e*es of the la$ of 'ivin' consent. Thus, #e&e copulation, $ith the
$o#an passivel* ac5uiescent, oes not constitute &ape. The fe#ale #ust not at an* ti#e
consentF he& consent, 'iven at an* ti#e p&io& to penet&ation, ho$eve& &eluctantl* 'iven, o& if
acco#panie $ith #e&e ve&bal p&otests an &efusals, p&events the act f&o# bein' &ape, p&ovie
the consent is $illin' an f&ee of initial coe&cion. Thus, $he&e a #an ta,es hol of a $o#an
a'ainst he& $ill an she afte&$a& consents to inte&cou&se befo&e the act is co##itte, his act is
not &ape. 6o$eve&, $he&e the fe#ale consents, but then $ith&a$s he& consent befo&e
penet&ation, an the act is acco#plishe b* fo&ce, it is &apeF an $he&e a $o#an offe&s to allo$ a
#an to have inte&cou&se $ith he& on ce&tain conitions an he &efuses to co#pl* $ith the
conitions, but acco#plishes the act $ithout he& consent, he is 'uilt* of &ape. 9e#phasis
supplie:
In his co##enta&* on the Revise Penal "oe,
()
Gustice A5uino iscusses the concept of
co##ittin' &ape a'ainst the fe#aleAs $ill o& $ithout he& consent, to $it7
In &ape co##itte b* #eans of u&ess, the victi#As $ill is nullifie o& est&o*e. 6ence, the
necessit* of p&ovin' &eal an constant &esistance on the pa&t of the $o#an to establish that the
act $as co##itte a'ainst he& $ill. On the othe& han, in the &ape of a $o#an ep&ive of
&eason o& unconscious, the victi# has no $ill. The absence of $ill ete&#ines the e%istence of
the &ape. Such lac, of $ill #a* e%ist not onl* $hen the victi# is unconscious o& totall* ep&ive of
&eason, but also $hen she is suffe&in' so#e #ental eficienc* i#pai&in' he& &eason o& f&ee $ill.
In that case, it is not necessa&* that she shoul offe& &eal opposition o& constant &esistance to the
se%ual inte&cou&se. "a&nal ,no$le'e of a $o#an so $ea, in intellect as to be incapable of le'al
consent constitutes &ape. =he&e the offene $o#an $as feeble-#ine, sic,l* an al#ost an
iiot, se%ual inte&cou&se $ith he& is &ape. 6e& failu&e to offe& &esistance to the act i not #ean
consent fo& she $as incapable of 'ivin' an* &ational consent.
The ep&ivation of &eason nee not be co#plete. Mental abno&#alit* o& eficienc* is enou'h.
"ohabitation $ith a feeble#ine, iiotic $o#an is &ape. Se%ual inte&cou&se $ith an insane
$o#an $as consie&e &ape. +ut a eaf#ute is not necessa&il* ep&ive of &eason. This
ci&cu#stances #ust be p&oven. Inte&cou&se $ith a eaf#ute is not &ape of a $o#an ep&ive of
&eason, in the absence of p&oof that she is an i#becile. Viaa sa*s that the &ape une& pa&. (
#a* be co##itte $hen the offene $o#an is ep&ive of &eason ue to an* cause such as
$hen she is asleep, o& ue to letha&'* p&ouce b* sic,ness o& na&cotics a#iniste&e to he& b*
the accuse. %%% 9e#phasis supplie:
+ution' $as a&&ai'ne, t&ie an convicte of the c&i#e of &ape as efine an penaliCe une&
pa&a'&aph ., A&ticle (DD-A, in &elation to pa&a'&aph ., A&ticle (DD-+ of the Revise Penal "oe,
as a#ene, une& an a#ene info&#ation that plainl* ave&&e that AAA $as a B#ental
&eta&ate.B The inse&tion of the ph&ase in the a#ene info&#ation $as si'nificant, because the
ph&ase put hi# on sufficient notice that the victi# B$as not in full possession of he& no&#al
&easonin' facult*.B
>0
The ph&ase fu&the& specificall* inicate $hich of the fou& #oes of
co##ittin' the c&i#e of &ape as p&ovie in pa&a'&aph ., A&ticle (DD-A of the Revise Penal
"oe, as a#ene, applie in his case, na#el*7
a. Th&ou'h fo&ce, th&eat o& inti#iationF
b. =hen the offene pa&t* is ep&ive of &eason o& is othe&$ise unconsciousF
c. +* #eans of f&auulent #achination o& '&ave abuse of autho&it*F
. =hen the offene pa&t* is une& .( *ea&s of a'e, o& is e#ente, even thou'h none
of the ci&cu#stances fi&st #entione is p&esent.
;et, +ution'As contention is that his case i not co#e une& an* of the fou& #oes ue to ca&nal
,no$le'e of a #ental &eta&ate not bein' eithe& ca&nal ,no$le'e of a fe#ale ep&ive of
&eason o& othe&$ise unconscious, o& of a fe#ale une& .( *ea&s of a'e o& e#ente.
The contention is un$a&&ante.
A&ticle (DD-A of the Revise Penal "oe, as a#ene b* Republic Act No. />1>, p&ovies7
A&ticle (DD-A. RapeF =hen An 6o$ "o##itte. Rape is co##itte H
.3 +* a #an $ho have ca&nal ,no$le'e of a $o#an une& an* of the follo$in' ci&cu#stances7
a3 Th&ou'h fo&ce, th&eat o& inti#iationF
b3 =hen the offene pa&t* is ep&ive of &eason o& othe&$ise unconsciousF
c3 +* #eans of f&auulent #achination o& '&ave abuse of autho&it*F an
3 =hen the offene pa&t* is une& t$elve 2.(3 *ea&s of a'e o& is e#ente, even
thou'h none of the ci&cu#stances #entione above be p&esent.
(3 +* an* pe&son $ho, une& an* of the ci&cu#stances #entione in pa&a'&aph . he&eof, shall
co##it an act of se%ual assault b* inse&tin' his penis into anothe& pe&sonAs #outh o& anal o&ifice,
o& an* inst&u#ent o& ob-ect into the 'enital o& anal o&ifice of anothe& pe&son.
"a&nal ,no$le'e of a #ental &eta&ate is &ape une& pa&a'&aph . of A&ticle (DD-A of the
Revise Penal "oe, as a#ene b* Republic Act No. />1> because a #ental &eta&ate is not
capable of 'ivin' he& consent to a se%ual act. P&oof of fo&ce o& inti#iation is not necessa&*, it
bein' sufficient fo& the State to establish, one, the se%ual con'&ess bet$een the accuse an the
victi#, an, t$o, the #ental &eta&ation of the victi#.
>.
It shoul no lon'e& be ebatable that &ape
of a #ental &eta&ate falls une& pa&a'&aph ., b3, of A&ticle (DD-A, sup&a, because the p&ovision
&efe&s to a &ape of a fe#ale Bep&ive of &eason,B a ph&ase that &efe&s to #ental abno&#alit*,
eficienc* o& &eta&ation.
>(
=ho, then, is a #ental &eta&ate $ithin the conte%t of the ph&ase Bep&ive of &easonB use in the
Revise Penal "oeI
In People v. Dalanas,
>>
the "ou&t &ene&s the follo$in' e%position on #ental &eta&ation an its
va&ious levels, viC7
Mental &eta&ation is a ch&onic conition p&esent f&o# bi&th o& ea&l* chilhoo an cha&acte&iCe
b* i#pai&e intellectual functionin' #easu&e b* stana&iCe tests. It #anifests itself in i#pai&e
aaptation to the ail* e#ans of the iniviualAs o$n social envi&on#ent. "o##onl*, a #ental
&eta&ate e%hibits a slo$ &ate of #atu&ation, ph*sical anJo& ps*cholo'ical, as $ell as i#pai&e
lea&nin' capacit*.
Althou'h B#ental &eta&ationB is often use inte&chan'eabl* $ith B#ental eficienc*,B the latte&
te&# is usuall* &ese&ve fo& those $ithout &eco'niCable b&ain patholo'*. The e'&ees of #ental
&eta&ation acco&in' to thei& level of intellectual function a&e illust&ate, thus7
Mental Reta&ation
<!V!< D!S"RIPTION T!RM INT!<<IE!N"! K@OTI!NT
2IK RANE!3
I P&ofoun +elo$ (0
II Seve&e (0->1
III Moe&ate >D-1(
IV Mil 1>-D/
%%%%
The t&aitional but no$ obsolescent te&#s applie to those e'&ees of #ental &eta&ation $e&e
2a3 iiot, havin' an IK of 0 to .), an a #a%i#u# intellectual facto& in ault life e5uivalent to that
of the ave&a'e t$o-*ea& ol chilF 2b3 i#becile b* an IK of (0 to ?) an a #a%i#u# intellectual
function in ault life e5uivalent to that of the ave&a'e seven-*ea& ol chilF #o&on o&
feeble#ine, havin' an IK of 10 to D) an a #a%i#u# intellectual function in ault life
e5uivalent to that of the ave&a'e t$elve-*ea& ol chil. Ps*chiat&ists an ps*cholo'ists appl* the
te&# Bbo&e&lineB intelli'ence to those $ith IK bet$een 80 to /). In People vs. Pal#a, $e &ule
that a pe&son is 'uilt* of &ape $hen he ha se%ual inte&cou&se $ith a fe#ale $ho $as suffe&in'
f&o# a Bbo&e&line #ental eficienc*.B 9e#phasis supplie:
"onsie&in' the finin's of ps*cholo'ist e EuC#an to the effect that AAA ha the #ental a'e of
a si%- to seven-*ea& ol, an a'e e5uate $ith i#becilit* une& the p&evious classification, he&
#ental a'e $as even lo$e& than that of a bo&e&line #ental eficienc* $ithin the conte%t of that
te&# as cha&acte&iCe in People v. Dalanas, sup&a.
>?
As such, +ution'As ca&nal ,no$le'e of
AAA a#ounte to &ape of a pe&son ep&ive of &eason.
The abilit* of the fe#ale to 'iven &ational consent to ca&nal inte&cou&se ete&#ines if ca&nal
,no$le'e of a #ental &eta&ate li,e AAA is &ape. Inee, the "ou&t has consistentl* consie&e
ca&nal ,no$le'e of a fe#ale #ental &eta&ate $ith the #ental a'e belo$ .( *ea&s of a'e as
&ape of a $o#an ep&ive of &eason.
>1
As the "ou&t aptl* state in People v. ManlapaC,
>D
$he&e
the victi# $as a .>-*ea& ol 'i&l $ith the #entalit* of a five-*ea&-ol, that abilit* to 'ive &ational
consent $as not p&esent, viC7
Se%ual inte&cou&se $ith a $o#an $ho is ep&ive of &eason o& $ith a 'i&l $ho is belo$ t$elve
*ea&s of a'e is &ape because she is incapable of 'ivin' &ational consent to the ca&nal inte&cou&se.
B<as #u-e&es p&ivaas e &aCon, ena-enaas, iiotas, i#beciles, son incapaces po& su estao
#ental e ap&ecia& la ofensa 5ue el culpable infie&e a su honestia *, po& tanto, incapaces e
consenti&. Pe&o no es conicion p&ecisa 5ue la ca&encia e &aCon sea co#pleta, basta la
abno&#alia o eficiencia #ental 5ue solo la is#inu*e, sin e#ba&'o, la -u&isp&uence es
isco&anteB 2II "uello "alon, De&echo Penal, .?th !., .)81, pp. 1>/-)3.
B"o#ete violacion el 5ue *ace #u-e& 5ue no tiene no&#al#ente esa&&ollaas sus facultaes
#entales 2.) nov. .)>03F a5ui esta co#p&enio el *aci#iento con ebiles o &et&asaos
#entales 2.. #a*o .)>(, (1 feb. .)?/, (8 sept. .)1.3F constitu*e este elito el coito con una
ni4a e .1 a4os enfe&#a e epilepsia 'enuina 5ue ca&ece e capacia pa&a conoce& el valo&
e sus actos 2( #a&Co .)1>3F el *aci#iento con oli'of&enicas 2#entall* eficient pe&sons3 (/
ab&il, (? octub&e, .)1D, .) feb. .)1/3F %%%B 2ibi., note >3.
The sa#e &ule p&evails in A#e&ican -u&isp&uence. BThe&e can be no 5uestion but that a
copulation $ith a $o#an ,no$n to be #entall* incapable of 'ivin' even an i#pe&fect consent is
&apeB 2State vs. Ge$ett, .)( At. 83.
BAn accuse is 'uilt* of the c&i#e of &ape $hen it is establishe that he ha se%ual inte&cou&se
$ith a fe#ale $ho $as #entall* incapable of valil* consentin' to o& opposin' the ca&nal actB 2D1
A# Gu& (n 8DD citin' State vs. P&o,osch, .1( Minn. /D, ./8 N= )8.F "o,ele* vs. State, /8 Te%.
"&i#. (1D, ((0 S= .0))F >. A<R >& .((8, sec. >3.
BIn this species of &ape neithe& fo&ce upon the pa&t of a #an no& &esistance upon the pa&t of a
$o#an fo&#s an ele#ent of the c&i#e. If, b* &eason of an* #ental $ea,ness, she is incapable of
le'all* consentin', &esistance is not e%pecte an* #o&e than it is in the case of one $ho has
been &u''e to unconsciousness, o& &obbe of -u'#ent b* into%icants. No& $ill an appa&ent
consent in such a case avail an* #o&e than in the case of a chil $ho #a* actuall* consent, but
$ho b* la$ is conclusivel* hel incapable of le'al consent. =hethe& the $o#an possesse
#ental capacit* sufficient to 'ive le'al consent #ust, savin' in e%ceptional cases, &e#ain a
5uestion of fact %%%. It nee but be sai that le'al consent p&esupposes an intelli'ence capable
of une&stanin' the act, its natu&e, an possible conse5uences. This e'&ee of intelli'ence #a*
e%ist $ith an i#pai&e an $ea,ene intellect, o& it #a* notB 2People vs. +o''s, ()0 Pac. D./
citin' People vs. E&iffin, ?) Pac. 8.. an People vs. Pee&*, .?D Pac. ??3. 9e#phasis supplie:
III
People v. "a&tuano $as not applicable
To boost his challen'e to the finin' that AAA $as a #ental &eta&ate, +ution' cites People v.
"a&tuano,
>8
a case $he&e the "ou&t &ule that a ia'nosis of #ental &eta&ation &e5ui&e a
tho&ou'h evaluation of the histo&* of the victi#, an hel that a ph*sical an labo&ato&*
e%a#ination b* a clinician $as necessa&*. 6e insists that the finin's of the ps*cholo'ist an the
ph*sicians $ho ha e%a#ine AAA fell sho&t of the &e5ui&e#ents set in People v. "a&tuano,
consie&in' that ps*cholo'ist e EuC#an i not t&* to locate the biolo'ical pa&ents of AAA fo&
the pu&pose of asce&tainin' he& pe&sonal histo&*, an i not base he& finin's on &eliable ata.
+ution'As &eliance on People v. "a&tuano oes not avance his cause.
People v. "a&tuano applies onl* to cases $he&e the&e is a ea&th of #eical &eco&s to sustain a
finin' of #ental &eta&ation. Inee, the "ou&t has cla&ifie so in People v. Delos
Santos,
>/
ecla&in' that the &eco&s in People v. "a&tuano $e&e $antin' in clinical, labo&ato&*,
an ps*cho#et&ic suppo&t to sustain a finin' that the victi# ha been suffe&in' f&o# #ental
&eta&ation. It is note that in People v. Delos Santos, the "ou&t uphel the finin' that the victi#
ha been #entall* &eta&e b* an e%a#inin' ps*chiat&ist $ho ha been able to ientif* the tests
a#iniste&e to the victi# an to sufficientl* e%plain the &esults of the tests to the t&ial cou&t.
>)
In i&ect cont&ast to People v. "a&tuano, this case i not lac, clinical finin's on the #entalit* of
the victi#.1awphi1
Mo&eove&, as cla&ifie in People v. Dalanas,
?0
People v. "a&tuano oes not p&eclue the
p&esentation b* the State of p&oof othe& than clinical evience to establish the #ental &eta&ation
of the victi#. Fo& su&e, the cou&ts a&e not enti&el* epenent on the &esults of clinical
e%a#inations in establishin' #ental &eta&ation. In People v. Al#acin,
?.
fo& instance, the "ou&t
too, into consie&ation the fact that the victi# $as illite&ate an unschoole in concluin' that
she $as #entall* incapable of assentin' to o& issentin' f&o# the se%ual inte&cou&se.
?(
Also, in
People v. Du#anon,
?>
the "ou&t concu&&e in the t&ial cou&tAs obse&vation an conclusion that the
victi# $as a #ental &eta&ate base on he& ph*sical appea&ance an on he& ifficult* to
une&stan an ans$e& the 5uestions u&in' he& testi#on*.
??
6e&e, the StateAs $itnesses sufficientl* e%plaine the ps*cholo'ical tests conucte to establish
AAAAs #ental &eta&ation $ith the #entalit* of a si%- o& seven-*ea&-ol. The t&ial -u'e hi#self
&eache a conclusion on AAAAs #entalit* f&o# his close pe&sonal obse&vation of he& as a $itness
in cou&t, notin' that she #anifeste a ifficult* in &esponin' to the 5uestions, especiall* those
bea&in' on he& bein' se%uall* abuse.
?1
The t&ial -u'eAs obse&vation to the effect that she ha no
notion of the $&on' that ha been one to he& $as valiate b* the clinical finin's. As such, the
totalit* of the evience p&esente b* the State establishe be*on &easonable oubt AAAAs
eficient #ental conition.
IV
P&esu#ption of innocence $as ove&co#e
b* sufficient evience of 'uilt
Notable is that +ution' i not testif*. 6e offe&e neithe& alibi no& enial espite the st&on'
cha&'e of &ape b&ou'ht a'ainst hi#. 6is efense $as pu&posel* li#ite to his sub#ission,
th&ou'h D&. Da*an, that AAA ha not been establishe to be a #ental &eta&ate. The&eb*, he i
not &efute that he ha ca&nal ,no$le'e of AAA. 6avin' ea&lie& e#onst&ate the futilit* of D&.
Da*anAs iscountin' of the StateAs evience of AAAAs #ental &eta&ation, $e can -ustifiabl*
consie& the p&esu#ption of innocence in favo& of +ution' as ove&co#e.
Still, even if he ha asse&te alibi an enial, his 'uilt fo& the &ape of AAA $oul not be &eve&se
in the face of AAAAs un$ave&in' testi#on* an of he& ve&* positive an fi&# ientification of hi#
as the #an $ho ha un&esse he& an se%uall* '&atifie hi#self off he&.
?D
6e coul no lon'e&
hie behin the p&otective shiel of his p&esu#e innocence, but shoul have co#e fo&$a& $ith
c&eible an st&on' evience of his lac, of autho&ship of the c&i#e. "onsie&in' that the bu&en
of the evience ha shifte to hi# but he i not ischa&'e his bu&en at all, the&e is no othe&
outco#e e%cept to affi&# his 'uilt be*on &easonable oubt.
*HEREFORE, the "ou&t AFFIRMS the ecision p&o#ul'ate on Ma* ./, (001 in "A-ER "R 6"
No. 00/D(.
The accuse shall pa* the costs of suit.
SO ORD!R!D.
LUCS P. !ERSMIN
Associate Gustice
=! "ON"@R7