People v. Abendaño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Wilfredo Abendaño, was convicted of rape for having carnal knowledge of Rosal Madriaga, a 15-year-old victim described as a mental retardate incapable of giving rational consent. The incidents occurred on October 26, 1989, and November 15, 1989, where the appellant allegedly threatened Rosal and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her. Rosal discovered her pregnancy in June 1990, leading to her confession and the filing of rape complaints. Procedural History: Two Informations for rape were filed. The trial court ordered a reinvestigation, and subsequent NBI psychological examinations confirmed Rosal's mental age was equivalent to that of a 7-year-old child, leading to amended Informations. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty of rape in both cases, sentencing him to two prison terms of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the victim P50,000.00 in each case. The Petition: The accused appealed, asserting that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient, that Rosal was not a mental retardate, and that the delay in filing the complaint warranted acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether the sexual intercourse with a victim diagnosed as a mental retardate constitutes rape. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently proved that the victim was incapable of giving legal consent due to her mental condition. Whether the delay in filing the complaint creates reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in both criminal cases. The accused-appellant was sentenced to two prison terms of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the victim P50,000.00 in each case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether sexual intercourse with a mental retardate constitutes rape: The Court reiterated that under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape can be committed when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under twelve years of age. It clarified that it is not necessary for the victim to be totally deprived of reason; a mental deficiency impairing her reason or free will is sufficient. Jurisprudence has established that sexual intercourse with someone intellectually weak to the extent of being incapable of giving consent constitutes rape. The Court emphasized that a person of weak intellect may not be able to effectively resist an act the implications of which she does not fully comprehend, and thus, proving force or intimidation becomes legally inconsequential. The mental retardate lacked the necessary discernment to knowingly give consent or oppose the sexual act. The Court has consistently ruled that a victim with a mental age below twelve years is incapable of giving legal consent, and therefore, sexual intercourse with such a person is rape. On the issue of whether the evidence sufficiently proved the victim's incapacity to consent: The Court found the evidence sufficient to establish Rosal's mental condition. The NBI psychological evaluation classified Rosal's mental age as seven (7) years, placing her in the mentally defective group with poor visual-motor skills and difficulty in oral and written communication. A neuro-psychiatric evaluation further disclosed her poor grasp of general information and judgment, classifying her within the mentally defective level. The testimony of Rosal's sister corroborated this, describing Rosal as having low memory, being easily frightened, not knowing how to fight, and hardly understanding what she was told. The Court also noted that Rosal's low grades, requiring 'pasang awa' (passing through pity), further indicated her subnormal intelligence. The clear and convincing testimony of Rosal herself, detailing the acts of sexual intercourse, was given credence over the accused's bare denial. The Court held that the positive testimony of a rape victim is given more credence, as no person would willingly undergo the humiliation of a public trial unless to condemn an injustice. On the issue of whether the delay in filing the complaint creates reasonable doubt: The Court dismissed this contention. It found the accused-appellant's allegation that Rosal was pressured by her mother to accuse him inconceivable, stating that a mother would not compromise her daughter's reputation to implicate someone in a crime he did not commit. The Court also refuted the argument that Rosal's enrollment in Second Year High School presumed normal mental faculties. It cited jurisprudence, such as People v. Antonio, where a 24-year-old retardate who finished First Year High School was still deemed incapable of comprehending the full ramifications of a carnal act. The Court explained that individuals with mild mental retardation within school age may still be educable with close supervision, but this does not equate to possessing the full mental capacity to consent to sexual intercourse. The victim's perception and judgment at the time of the sexual abuse were viewed in light of her mental condition.
Main Doctrine
Sexual intercourse with a mental retardate whose mentality is of a girl below twelve years of age constitutes rape, as such a person lacks the necessary discernment to knowingly give consent or oppose the sexual act. The presence of force or intimidation is of no legal consequence in such cases.