G.R. No. 219957 APRIL 4, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ELEUTERIO URMAZA y TORRES, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Eleuterio Urmaza, was charged with qualified rape of AAA, a deaf-mute person. The prosecution established that on September 7, 2011, Urmaza entered AAA’s house, and despite her resistance, had carnal knowledge of her. A neighbor witnessed the act through a hole in the wall. AAA’s mother reported the incident after AAA communicated the rape through sign language. A psychiatric evaluation confirmed AAA suffered from mental retardation, rendering her incapable of understanding the concept of safety or giving meaningful consent. Urmaza admitted to the sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual, alleging a prior relationship with AAA.
The Regional Trial Court found Urmaza guilty of qualified rape, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Both courts gave credence to AAA’s testimony, delivered via a sign language interpreter, and the medical findings on her mental state. They held that carnal knowledge of a mental retardate constitutes rape, as she is incapable of giving consent, making proof of force unnecessary. The courts qualified the crime due to the victim’s mental disability and Urmaza’s knowledge thereof.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Urmaza’s conviction for qualified rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the classification from qualified to simple rape. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the testimony of a mentally retarded victim, given through a qualified interpreter, is admissible and credible. It reiterated the legal principle that sexual intercourse with a woman deprived of reason or consciousness is rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Proof of force or intimidation is immaterial as a mental retardate is legally incapable of giving consent.
However, the Court downgraded the crime to simple rape. For the qualifying circumstance of the victim’s mental disability under Article 266-B to apply, the Information must allege that the accused had “knowledge” of that disability. The Amended Information in this case failed to aver Urmaza’s knowledge of AAA’s mental retardation. While the prosecution evidence proved such knowledge, this deficiency in the Information was fatal. An accused cannot be convicted of a qualified offense unless the qualifying circumstance is both alleged in the Information and proved during trial. Consequently, Urmaza is guilty only of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The awarded damages were adjusted accordingly to conform with prevailing jurisprudence.