G.R. No. 108599 October 7, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO PAMOR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging Eduardo Pamor with the crime of rape committed on or about December 31, 1988, in Barangay Paclolo, Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro. The complainant, Fanny Dador, was a 14-year-old girl suffering from Moderate Mental Retardation, with an IQ equivalent to 40.4 and a mental age of 5 years and 3 months. The prosecution evidence established that on the said date, while Fanny was alone in her house, the accused entered, covered her mouth, threatened her with a knife, undressed her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her against her will. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Fanny’s pregnancy was later confirmed. She initially did not disclose the rape due to the threat but eventually confided the details to a hilot, Nelfe Sanicit. The defense, anchored on alibi, presented witnesses to testify that the accused was in San Jose, ten kilometers away, from December 30, 1988, to January 1, 1989, attending to his sick wife and subsequently staying at his sister’s house. The defense also claimed the victim’s family held a grudge against the accused due to a prior incident. The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify Fanny Dador P50,000.00. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

The core issue is the credibility of witnesses, specifically: (1) the credibility of the testimony of the mentally retarded complainant, Fanny Dador; (2) the trial court’s evaluation of the defense’s evidence; and (3) whether the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt for rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the appeal and AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision in toto. The Court held:
1. The trial court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect, as it is in a better position to observe the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying. The trial court found the prosecution witnesses, including Fanny Dador, to be honest, sincere, and convincing, while the defense witnesses did not appear truthful.
2. The testimony of a mentally retarded rape victim is credible. The law does not disqualify a mentally retarded person from being a witness. Her mental condition, with a mental age of a 5-year-old, makes it highly improbable that she could fabricate a story of rape. Her narration was straightforward and consistent on material points.
3. The alleged inconsistencies in Fanny’s testimony (regarding her opportunity to shout or escape) are minor and do not affect her credibility. They pertain to details a child of tender years may not accurately recall. Her failure to immediately report the rape is understandable due to the accused’s threat on her life and is common in rape cases.
4. The defense of alibi is weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The distance of ten kilometers between San Jose and Barangay Paclolo did not make it physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene.
5. The argument regarding the gestation period (from December 31, 1988, to the child’s delivery on September 4, 1989, being only eight months and seven days) is without merit. Medical authorities recognize that the normal gestation period is approximately 280 days or about nine calendar months, but it is variable. A period of eight months and seven days is within the possible range of a full-term pregnancy.
6. The crime of rape was sufficiently proven. Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental retardation is rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as her mental condition renders her incapable of giving valid consent. The accused’s use of a knife and threat to kill established force and intimidation.