G.R. No. 107950 June 17, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ANTONIO y SIOBAL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 5, 1989, Adela Carbonell filed a criminal complaint accusing Jose Antonio y Siobal of raping her daughter, Mercedita Carbonell, on December 22, 1988. The complaint was supported by sworn statements and a medical certificate from Dr. Hian Kiat Dy, which noted a healed hymenal laceration. After preliminary investigation, the case was transmitted to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). A criminal complaint was filed on June 2, 1989, alleging that the accused, by means of violence and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with Mercedita, who was suffering from mental illness or deficiency, against her will.
During trial, the prosecution established that on the afternoon of December 22, 1988, Mercedita went to the accused’s house to retrieve borrowed comics. The accused, alone at home, let her in, closed the windows and door, forcibly seized her, touched her breast, inserted his finger into her vagina, and then had sexual intercourse with her twice—first while forcing her to stoop down and then on the cement floor. He threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. Mercedita, who has epilepsy, later experienced stomach pains, seizures, and had blood on her skirt. She revealed the rape to her mother on January 3, 1989.
Medical and psychological evidence showed Mercedita suffered from an Organic Mental Disorder secondary to a seizure disorder. Psychologist Macario Barinque testified that based on intelligence tests, Mercedita had a Verbal Scale IQ of 57, Performance Scale IQ of 64, and a Full Scale IQ of 59, placing her in the category of “Mild Mental Retardation” with the mental capacity of a seven-year-old child. Dr. Dino Peña confirmed she had an organic mental disorder but was competent to testify.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming the accused was at a Christmas party and later at his vulcanizing shop. The RTC found the accused guilty of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay indemnity and damages. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the accused is guilty of the crime of rape, considering the mental condition of the victim and the credibility of her testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court held that the victim’s testimony was credible and consistent. Her mental retardation, with a mental age of seven, rendered her incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse. The medical findings of a healed hymenal laceration corroborated her claim. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The Court ruled that sexual intercourse with a woman known to be mentally defective constitutes rape. The award of civil indemnity was increased to P40,000.00, and moral damages were increased to P40,000.00, considering the victim’s condition. The decision of the RTC was affirmed with these modifications.