G.R. No. 243988, August 27, 2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The accused-appellant XXX was charged with Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610. The victim, AAA, was a 29-year-old woman with a mental age comparable to a six-year-old child, as confirmed by psychological evaluation. The information alleged that in November 2008, XXX had sexual intercourse with AAA by means of force and intimidation, taking advantage of her mental disability, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of a child. A separate incident on April 13, 2013, involved XXX allegedly dragging AAA into shrubs and sexually abusing her. At trial, AAA’s mother testified to AAA’s mental condition, and the psychologist confirmed her mental age. XXX admitted to the 2008 sexual intercourse but claimed AAA was his lover and consented. He denied the 2013 incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted XXX of Rape for the 2008 incident but acquitted him of the 2013 sexual abuse charge. The Court of Appeals affirmed the rape conviction but modified the damages awarded. XXX appealed to the Supreme Court, maintaining his “sweetheart” defense and contesting AAA’s mental incapacity.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, considering the victim’s mental disability and the alleged consent.

RULING

Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty of statutory rape. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) is committed when the offended party is under twelve years of age, or is demented, and the accused has carnal knowledge of the victim. Following the precedent in People v. Castillo, the Court held that for a victim with an intellectual disability, the mental age, not the chronological age, determines the capacity to give rational consent. Here, AAA’s mental age was established to be that of a six-year-old, making her incapable of giving rational consent to sexual activity. XXX’s admission of sexual intercourse in November 2008, coupled with the conclusive proof of AAA’s mental retardation, satisfied all elements of statutory rape. His defense of a consensual “sweetheart” relationship was unsubstantiated and irrelevant, as consent is immaterial when the victim lacks the mental capacity to give it. The Court sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and the awarded damages.