880 Phil. 332
LOPEZ, J.:
[Criminal Case No. CBU-101439]At the trial, BBB testified that AAA is already 29 years old but is a mental retardate and an illiterate.[7] The psychologist confirmed that AAA has a mental age comparable to that of a six-year old child. Moreover, she had a very poor intelligence quotient and severe reduction in emotional expressiveness. There is a possibility that AAA cannot determine right from wrong.[8]
That on or about the month of November 2008, at around 6:00 o'clock in the morning, more or less, in [CCC], Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation and taking advantage of the mental disability, and of which accused has knowledge of the mental disability of the offended party at the time of the commission of the offense, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA, a 29[-]year old girl, a mentally retarded [sic] and with a mental age comparable to a 6-year old child, without her consent and against her will, resulting in the latter's pregnancy and giving birth to a child, and which act of the accused debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human which is prejudicial to her welfare, interest and development as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5] (Emphasis supplied.)
[Criminal Case No. CBU-101440]
That on the 13th of April 2013 at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, at [CCC,] Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with the use of force subject to sexual abuse AAA. a 29-year old girl, a mentally challenged [sic] and with a mental age comparable to a 6-year old, by waylaying, grabbing, hugging, holding her both hands tightly and dragging her to the grassy area, which act of the accused constitutes psychological and physical abuse, which is prejudicial to the welfare and development of the child and debasing, degrading, and demeaning her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without possibility for parole, in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346. The accused is ordered to pay the offended party AAA civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of P30,000.00, with interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until satisfaction of the award.XXX appealed to the CA docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02447. He contended that AAA consented to their sexual intercourse. Also, XXX insisted that AAA is not a mental retardate.[14] In contrast, the Office of the Solicitor General countered that the XXX's sweetheart theory is unsubstantiated. Likewise, the prosecution sufficiently established that AAA suffers from mental retardation, which the psychologist confirmed and the trial court observed in open court.[15] On June 29, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC's findings that XXX is guilty of Rape but modified the award of damages,[16] to wit:
The accused is hereby acquitted of the charge of violation of R.A. [No.] 7610 in Criminal Case No. CBU-101440.
SO ORDERED.[13] (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated July 4, 2016 finding Accused-Appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:Hence, this recourse on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish XXX's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He interposes the "sweetheart" theory and claims that their sexual intercourse was a free and voluntary act.[18]SO ORDERED.[17]
- Accused-Appellant [XXX] is ORDERED to PAY AAA the following amounts: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
- Accused-Appellant [XXX] is also ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid, to be imposed on the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
The term "deprived of reason," is associated with insanity or madness. A person deprived of reason has mental abnormalities that affect his or her reasoning and perception of reality and, therefore, his or her capacity to resist, make decisions, and give consent.Here, all the elements of statutory Rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Foremost, it was established that AAA is incapable of giving rational consent and has not reached the level of maturity that would give her the capacity to make prudent decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality.[25] A series of psychological tests revealed that AAA is a mental retardate. The examining psychologist testified in open court that AAA has a chronological age of 29 years old but has a mental age of a six-year old child, to wit:
The term "demented," refers to a person who suffers from a mental condition called dementia. Dementia refers to the deterioration or loss of mental functions such as memory, learning, speaking, and social condition, which impairs one's independence in everyday activities.
We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual disability," had been classified under "deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of reason" and "demented," however, should be differentiated from the term, "mentally retarded" or "intellectually disabled." An intellectually disabled person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even ruled that they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her maturity is not there despite the physical age. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the "socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social responsibility."
Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. Both are considered incapable of giving rational consent because both are not yet considered to have reached the level of maturity that gives them the capability to make rational decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making is a function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her mental age. Therefore, in determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A (1) (d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established.[24] (Emphasis in the original.)
Also, the trial judge had the opportunity to actually examine the demeanor of AAA and concluded that she is a mental retardate. As the RTC aptly observed:
Q Madam Witness, could you please tell us why did you conduct a psychological evaluation on the client [AAA]? A She was referred to me for assessment of her current mental functioning. COURT: (To the witness) Q Why? What was her behavior that she was brought to you and required for evaluation? A She had flat affect. Q What do you mean by that? A A severe reduction in emotional expressiveness. [x x x x]Q Based on the result of the test that you conducted on [AAA], will you please tell us the outcome of the examination that you conducted?
A Client was given the TONI-3. Client's intelligence quotient was of very poor category, significantly indicative of mental slowness. Client's mental age is comparable to a 6 years [sic] old child. Q Is that findings [sic] stated in your psychological report? A Yes. [x x x x]Q And at the time that you conducted the psychological evaluation, what was her actual age at that time? A She was 29 years old. Q But according to you her mental age at that time was of 6 years old? A Yes. [x x x x]Q Now, the alleged incident in this case happened in x x x November 2008. Is it possible that in the year, November 2008, her mental age was even lower than six years old? A There is a possibility but it is within the bracket of five to six years old. [x x x x]COURT: (To the witness) Q At that mental age of six years old, she could be easily lure [sic] or threaten [sic]? A Yes, your Honor. Q So, a mere threatening word could be enough to convince her to given in whatever is asked of her? A Yes, your Honor. Q Son [sic] in this particular case, was she lured, was she threatened or intimidated? A There is a possibility that she had been lured or threatened. Q So this could be easily done by anyone on her knowing her mental age? A A.nybody, your Honor. Q So even if one does not know her well, could it be easily discern (sic) that her mental age is not compatible with her chronological age? A Yes, your Honor. Q Immediately upon talking to her, it is very clear that her mental age is not the same with her real age? A By just looking at her, your Honor. Q It is easily determined? A Yes, your Honor.[26] (Emphases supplied.)
The offended party AAA, although 29 years old at the time of the alleged incidents, had the mental age of a six-year old, as attested to by a psychologist, who observed AAA and conducted tests on her. The psychologist.further explained that because of her mental disability, AAA could not sense danger to her person and was easily lured or threatened. Her physical observation of AAA readily showed that the latter had such a disability. This belies the allegations of the accused and his witness that they never Icnew that AAA was mentally retarded, despite the fact that AAA was a relative and a neighbor. Indeed, even the court could discern from the way AAA spoke and behaved when she testified, that she had the mind of a child. AAA's manner and behavior, even at first impression, indicated her disability and it was impossible for the accused not to have known that.[27] (Emphasis supplied.)More importantly, the prosecution established that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim. XXX admitted having sexual intercourse with AAA sometime in November 2008 but argued that they were lovers and that the act was free and voluntary on their part. As an affirmative defense, the "sweetheart" theory must be supported by convincing evidence, such as mementos, love letters, notes, and photographs.[28] However, XXX's theory of consensual sex is barren of probative weight. He failed to substantiate his claim and offered only self-serving assertions. Further, the testimony of the accused's close relative is necessarily suspect[29] and cannot prevail over AAA's unequivocal declaration that XXX "did not court [her]" and "was not even [her] boyfriend."[30] Even assuming that they have a relationship, XXX cannot force AAA to have sex against her will. A "love affair" neither justifies Rape nor serves as license, for lust.[31] In addition, the filing of criminal charges are not acts of a woman savoring a consensual coitus but that of a maiden seeking retribution for the outrage committed against her.[32]
Hence, there is a need to qualify that the accused is not "eligible for parole'' only in cases where the imposable penalty should have been death were it not for the enactment of RA No. 9346 or the Anti-Death Penalty Law.[39] XXX is guilty of statutory Rape penalized with reclusion perpetua and there is no need to indicate that he was ineligible for parole. XXX is ipso facto ineligible for parole because he was sentenced to suffer an indivisible penalty.
- In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility of parole'" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and
- When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of [Republic Act] (R.A.) [No.] 9346, the qualification of ''without eligibility of parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346. (Italics in the original.)