People v. Melecio Asturias
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case arises from an accusation charging the defendant with the crime of rape allegedly committed on November 1, 1972, against Vilma Ortega, then 17 years old. Medical and psychiatric evidence introduced by the prosecution established that Vilma sustained a prior head injury in childhood and was diagnosed as a moderate mental retardate with a mentality lower than that of a seven-year-old child. Physical and medicolegal examinations were admitted in evidence; the prosecution presented testimony and certifications indicating mental deficiency and physical findings consistent with carnal knowledge. The defense presented witnesses who testified to the accused's presence at home on the night in question and to alternative whereabouts of the complainant, and the defense argued consent and incorrect penalty and damages assessment. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch III, in Criminal Case No. 2662 rendered judgment on May 18, 1982, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under the prefatory paragraph and paragraph No. 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered indemnity of P12,000.00. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court First Division heard and issued the present decision on January 31, 1985. The Petition: The appellant contended that (a) the trial court erred in convicting him on the ground that the complainant was feeble-minded and therefore incapable of consent; (b) the correct penalty, if any, should be reclusion temporal rather than reclusion perpetua; and (c) the award of P12,000.00 as indemnity was excessive.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant on the ground that the complainant was mentally retarded and thus incapable of giving valid consent. Whether the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal. Whether the amount awarded as indemnity by the trial court was proper.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance convicting the appellant for rape is AFFIRMED. The indemnity imposed by the trial court is modified and increased from P12,000.00 to P20,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the complainant was incapable of giving valid consent: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the complainant was a moderate mental retardate with a mentality lower than a seven-year-old child, relying on expert testimony and medical certifications admitted without objection. Applying People v. Manlapaz, the Court held that a victim with the mentality of a 5-year-old was incapable of giving rational consent, and followed that precedent to conclude incapacity here. The Court also cited People v. Gallano to underscore that a person mentally retarded or mentally ill to such a degree is incapable of offering effective resistance or giving meaningful consent. The Court noted corroborative facts: allowance of leading questions at trial, observable incoherence or uncooperativeness noted by the medicolegal officer, and the psychiatrist's diagnosis, all supporting the conclusion of mental incapacity. Given these findings, the Court reasoned that consent, even if claimed by the defense, is legally ineffective because the complainant lacked the requisite mental capacity to consent. On Whether the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal: The Court examined the applicable statutory scheme and held that Republic Act No. 4111 increased the penalty for rape to reclusion perpetua. The Court emphasized that the indeterminate sentence law does not apply to offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, which is treated as an indivisible penalty. Citing People v. Arizala, the Court observed that mitigating circumstances such as voluntary surrender do not alter the penalty when the statutory penalty is reclusion perpetua. Consequently, the Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua. On Whether the indemnity awarded was proper and the amount thereof: The Court recognized that Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code mandates indemnity for rape and that civil liability is concurrently imposed under Articles 100, 104(3), 107 and 345(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as reiterated in People v. Peña. Exercising appellate review over the quantum of damages, the Court increased the indemnity from P12,000.00 to P20,000.00, finding the higher award more appropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the victim's condition. The Court thus affirmed the obligation to indemnify and adjusted the amount upward as part of the dispositive relief.
Main Doctrine
A person who, by reason of mental retardation, has the mentality of a child below seven years is incapable of giving valid consent; carnal knowledge under such circumstances constitutes rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua (as increased by Republic Act No. 4111) applies; indemnity under Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code is mandatory.