GR 101832; (August, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101832 August 18, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE TABALESMA y OLEVETE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On June 26, 1990, Rosemarie Eco, a mental retardate with the mental capacity of a ten-year-old, was sent on an errand. On her way to visit her sister, she was accosted by accused-appellant Jose Tabalesma, who forcibly pulled her into his sister’s house. He threatened to kill her if she shouted, dragged her to a bed, undressed her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge against her will. A neighbor, Manuel Perez, heard her cries for help and alerted her brother, Enrique. Upon confronting Tabalesma, who initially refused to open the door, Enrique eventually found Rosemarie inside, crying. She immediately told him she had been raped.
The defense was denial. Tabalesma claimed Rosemarie voluntarily went to his house seeking refuge from her mother. He denied any sexual assault. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P20,000.00 in damages.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Rosemarie Eco, credible and consistent. Her immediate outcry to her brother upon rescue, and the prompt filing of the complaint and medical examination, corroborated her account. The medico-legal findings, while showing a non-virgin state with healed lacerations, were consistent with her testimony given the absence of a requirement for fresh injuries to prove rape.
The Court rejected the defense of denial as inherently weak. It emphasized that the victim’s mental deficiency made her less likely to fabricate a story, and there was no evidence of any motive for her to falsely accuse the appellant, with whom she had no intimate relationship. The appellant’s knowledge of her condition further underscored the exploitative nature of the act. However, the Court modified the award of damages, increasing the civil indemnity from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence for the rape of a mental retardate. The decision of the trial court was thus affirmed with modification.