People v. De Jesus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Rogelio de Jesus, a 19-year-old farmer, was aware of the victim Clara Mina's feeble-mindedness and her tendency to be left alone in her house. On January 3, 1974, while Clara's parents and other household members were in the field, the accused entered Clara's house. He carried her from a trunk, laid her on the floor despite her outcry, removed her panties and his trousers, and performed sexual intercourse with her. Clara's mother, Pastora Simon, returned to the house sensing rain and witnessed the act. Upon seeing Pastora, the accused fled. Pastora reported the incident to the barrio captain and later investigated Clara, who recounted the events. The following day, Clara, accompanied by her parents, denounced the accused to the police. Clara was medically examined, revealing hymenal lacerations, vagina admitting one finger with ease and two with difficulty, fresh perineal abrasion, and a contusion on her left temporal area. The accused was later surrendered by his brother-in-law and executed an affidavit admitting sexual intercourse but denying rape, claiming maltreatment by jail guards. Procedural History: The Circuit Criminal Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. It sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party Clara Mina y Simon in the amount of P10,000.00 plus P5,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, without subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainant, being feeble-minded, is a competent witness. Whether sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded woman constitutes rape under Article 335, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
Ruling
The appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto. The accused Rogelio de Jesus y Quizon is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to indemnify the offended party Clara Mina y Simon in the amount of P10,000.00 plus P5,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the complainant's competency as a witness: The Court held that while the complainant was indeed feeble-minded and displayed difficulty in comprehending questions, there was no showing that she could not convey her ideas by words or signs. The records indicated that she gave sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded by the court and counsels. Therefore, the Court was satisfied that the complainant could perceive and transmit her perceptions to others in her own way, making her a competent witness. The accused's assertion of her incompetence was thus rejected. On the issue of whether sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded woman constitutes rape: The Court affirmed that having sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded woman is rape under Article 335, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the offender having carnal knowledge of a woman deprived of reason. The Court clarified that the deprivation of reason contemplated by law does not need to be complete; mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient. Citing Spanish jurisprudence, the Court noted that a man having carnal knowledge of a woman whose mental faculties are not normally developed, or who is suffering from mental backwardness or is an idiot, commits the crime of rape. The feeble-minded complainant, being incapable of thinking and reasoning like a normal human being, possessed a defective will incapable of freely and voluntarily giving consent, which is essential to lift coitus from criminality. On the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found sufficient evidence on record that the accused performed the sexual act. The accused's claim that he merely inserted his forefinger was contradicted by his own testimony that he lay on top of the complainant, which was unnecessary if his purpose was merely to insert a finger. The complainant's testimony that the accused brought out his penis and inserted it into her vagina, causing her pain, was corroborated by the medical findings of hymenal lacerations and fresh perineal abrasions. These physical findings supported the complainant's account of sexual intercourse, negating the accused's defense.
Main Doctrine
Sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded woman constitutes rape under Article 335, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as such a person is considered deprived of reason and incapable of giving free and voluntary consent.