GR 139471; (January, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139471. January 23, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO MAGABO y MAGARTE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that on June 23, 1998, accused-appellant Rolando Magabo invited the victim, Noemi Dacanay, to his house. Once there, he kissed her, fondled her breasts, and had sexual intercourse with her. Noemi later reported the incident to her mother, leading to a police report and a medico-legal examination. Dr. Ma. Christina Freyra confirmed healed hymenal lacerations and abrasions. The Information alleged the rape was committed against Noemi, described as a “mental retardate.” At trial, the court observed Noemi’s physical appearance and demeanor, concluding she was indeed mentally deficient. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Magabo was selling items elsewhere and suggested the charge was fabricated due to a prior altercation with another individual.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of rape, specifically the victim’s mental retardation as an essential circumstance under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Court clarified that carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is rape under Article 266-A(1)(b), where the victim is “deprived of reason,” not under subparagraph (d) for those “demented.” Proof of force or intimidation is unnecessary as a mental retardate is incapable of giving legal consent. The elements required are sexual intercourse and the victim’s mental retardation. Sexual intercourse was proven by Noemi’s credible testimony, corroborated by the medico-legal findings. Her mental retardation was sufficiently established by the trial court’s firsthand observation of her physical appearance and behavior during testimony, which was consistent with the medico-legal officer’s conclusion. The defense failed to rebut this evidence. The trial court’s mistaken citation of the specific subparagraph was deemed harmless, as the conviction was based on the general provisions for rape. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded damages were upheld.