G.R. No. 126921 , August 28, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE MORENO y CASTOR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jose Moreno y Castor, was charged with rape by means of force and intimidation in a Complaint dated October 4, 1993, filed by Jocelyn Bansagales and her mother, Dolores Bansagales. The incident allegedly occurred on September 29, 1993, in Pasig. The complainant, Jocelyn Bansagales, was a 26-year-old mental retardate with a mental age equivalent to a six-year-old child, as diagnosed by psychiatrists from the National Center for Mental Health. The prosecution’s evidence established that appellant, a neighbor whom Jocelyn called “Kuya Joe,” led her to a rented house, undressed her, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will, threatening to hurt her if she did not submit. A medico-legal examination revealed deep and shallow healed lacerations on Jocelyn’s hymen consistent with sexual intercourse. The defense presented denial, with appellant claiming that Jocelyn initiated sexual play and that he only kissed, hugged, and “fingered” her, but did not have sexual intercourse. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City convicted appellant of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The main issues raised on appeal were: (1) whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused on a ground other than that alleged in the complaint (i.e., under paragraphs 2 or 3 of Article 335 for deprivation of reason or being under twelve years of age mental equivalent, instead of paragraph 1 for force and intimidation as charged); (2) whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused despite alleged failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to apply the mens rea doctrine.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, but clarified the legal basis. The Court held that the accused-appellant was correctly convicted under paragraph 1 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (rape by force and intimidation), as charged in the Information, and not under paragraphs 2 or 3. The Court ruled that while the victim’s mental retardation is relevant to the degree of force required, it does not change the mode of commission alleged. The force necessary in rape is relative; when the victim is an imbecile with the mental age of a six-year-old, the force required to overcome her is of a lesser degree. Jocelyn’s testimony, corroborated by medical findings, sufficiently proved that carnal knowledge was achieved through force and intimidation, as she submitted out of fear. The Court also rejected the defense of denial and the claim of an amorous relationship as unsubstantiated. The constitutional right to be informed of the accusation was not violated because the conviction was based on the mode alleged (force and intimidation). The mens rea doctrine was found inapplicable as rape is a crime of result, and the intent is presumed from the deliberate act of sexual intercourse. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim.