G.R. No. L-57145 May 24, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. VALENTIN ATUTUBO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Valentin Atutubo, was convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the trial court. The victim, Marilyn Talavera, was 18 years old but was found to be a mental retardate with an I.Q. of 35, possessing the mentality of a child aged 4 to 6 years. Her pregnancy was discovered after medical examinations, and she identified Atutubo, a 45-year-old man she called “Tio Boy,” as the one who had sexual intercourse with her on January 28, 1975. Atutubo admitted to the sexual act but claimed it was consensual, arguing that Marilyn voluntarily submitted to him as she allegedly had with another man on a prior occasion. He further contended he was unaware of her mental condition.
The prosecution presented a psychologist who testified to Marilyn’s severe mental retardation, a finding the defense failed to refute despite being granted an opportunity for an independent psychiatric examination. The information alleged the rape was committed with force and intimidation, but these elements were not conclusively proven. The defense hinged on the argument that consent was given and that Atutubo had no knowledge of the victim’s mental deficiency.

ISSUE

Whether sexual intercourse with a mentally retarded woman, who has the mental capacity of a young child, constitutes rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, even in the absence of force or intimidation and despite the accused’s claim of consent and lack of knowledge of her condition.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the application of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes sexual intercourse with a woman under twelve years of age, or one who is demented, irrespective of her consent. The Court ruled that a woman who is congenitally and severely mentally retarded, possessing the discernment of a child below twelve, is legally incapable of giving intelligent consent to a sexual act. Her condition places her in the same category as a child under twelve for the purpose of the law; consent is immaterial and legally inoperative.
The Court rejected Atutubo’s defense of lack of knowledge of her condition. Given his admitted prior intimate relations with her and the obvious nature of her abnormality, his claim was not credible. Furthermore, the failure to prove force and intimidation was deemed immaterial because the crime falls under the specific provision for intercourse with a woman deprived of reason. The sworn statement taken without counsel was inadmissible, but this was inconsequential as Atutubo affirmed its contents in his court testimony. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00. The Court emphasized the accused’s particular reprehensibility for exploiting a completely defenseless victim.