G.R. Nos. 106541-42 March 31, 1995
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Menandro Trimor, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of October 7, 1987, Benedicta Decena, a 27-year-old woman, was washing clothes alone in waist-deep waters at Dagat-Dagatan, a lagoon. Two men, Menandro Trimor and Antonio Magsipoc, approached her. Trimor dove into the water, removed her panty, and threatened to kill her if she resisted. Magsipoc held her shoulder while pointing a knife at her. Decena was then made to lie on a rock on the shore where Trimor had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance, which she exhibited by pushing him away when she felt pain. Thereafter, Magsipoc also raped her. Two days later, on October 9, 1987, Decena returned to the same place, and the two men raped her again. Decena initially kept the incident a secret but revealed it when her sister noticed her bulging stomach. She gave birth to a baby boy on July 8, 1988. Trimor and Magsipoc were charged with two counts of rape. The case against Magsipoc was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The prosecution presented Dr. Erlinda Marfil, head of the NBI Neuro-Psychiatric Service, who testified that Decena was a retardate with the comprehension of a seven-year-old child. Trimor’s defense consisted of denial and alibi. The trial court convicted Trimor of two counts of rape and sentenced him to two penalties of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay damages. In his appeal, Trimor abandoned his defense of denial and alibi and claimed that Decena consented to the sexual act.

ISSUE

Whether or not accused-appellant Menandro Trimor is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification as to damages. The Court held that the victim, Benedicta Decena, was a retardate with the mental age of a seven-year-old child at the time of the crime, as established by the expert testimony of Dr. Marfil. Considering her mental state, proof of force, violence, or intimidation is superfluous, as the crime is deemed akin to statutory rape. The Court found that the trial court’s factual findings, including the victim’s credibility and mental condition, were entitled to great weight. The Court rejected Trimor’s change of defense from alibi to consent as an indication of desperation. It also held that the victim’s behavior, such as continuing to wash clothes during the assault and her delay in reporting, was consistent with her mental retardation and did not impair her credibility. The Court further noted that, assuming the victim was not a retardate, intimidation was present given the deserted crime scene, the presence of two men, and the threat with a knife. The award of damages was increased to P40,000.00. Justice Melo dissented, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of rape, citing the absence of resistance and questioning the conclusiveness of the finding of mental retardation.