G.R. No. 168932; October 19, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Charlie Butiong, Defendant-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Charlie Butiong, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City of the crime of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The information alleged that on or about October 7, 1998, Butiong willfully had carnal knowledge of the complainant, AAA, a mental retardate, against her will and consent. AAA was 29 years old at the time of the incident but was diagnosed as having a mild level of mental retardation with a mental age of six to seven years. The incident occurred when Butiong, a neighbor, invited AAA to his house, locked the door, removed their shorts, and had intercourse with her on a sofa. AAA felt pain and reported the incident to her sister, leading to a police report and medico-legal examination. The medico-legal examination revealed AAA’s hymen was intact but distensible with a wide orifice, allowing complete penetration without injury. Due to her observed disorientation, she was referred for psychiatric evaluation. Psychological tests (Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test, Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test, Draw a Person Test) administered at the National Mental Hospital confirmed mild mental retardation. The defense presented an expert psychologist, Dr. Natividad Dayan, who criticized the reliability of the tests used and suggested other standardized tests should have been administered. The RTC and CA found AAA’s testimony credible and the prosecution’s evidence sufficient, noting the trial judge’s personal observation of AAA as a retardate.

ISSUE

1. Whether the exact date of the commission of the offense must be proved to convict for rape.
2. Whether the prosecution duly established that AAA was a mental retardate.
3. Whether a mental retardate is legally considered in the same class as a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious for purposes of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. On the exact date of rape: The Court ruled that the exact date of the commission of rape is not an element of the crime and need not be proved with precision. The testimony of AAA that the rape occurred on October 7, 1998, was sufficient. The absence of spermatozoa in AAA’s genitalia also does not negate rape, as the essential element is penetration, not emission.
2. On AAA’s mental retardation: The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently established AAA’s mental retardation through the consistent findings of psychologist Nimia de Guzman and Dr. Diana de Castro of the National Center for Mental Health, supported by a series of psychological tests and the trial judge’s personal observation of AAA’s demeanor and testimony. The defense expert’s criticism of the tests used did not invalidate these findings, as the evaluation was based on history, interview, and physical examination, complying with the standard required in People v. Cartuano, Jr. The non-presentation of other examining physicians did not weaken the prosecution’s case, as their findings were corroborated by presented evidence.
3. On the legal classification of a mental retardate: The Court ruled that a mental retardate, like AAA with the mentality of a six- to seven-year-old, is legally incapable of giving rational consent to sexual intercourse. She is considered in the same class as a woman “deprived of reason” under Article 266-A(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The law protects those who cannot understand the nature and consequences of the sexual act due to mental deficiency. Citing People v. Manlapaz and People v. Asturias, the Court emphasized that carnal knowledge with a woman who is mentally retarded constitutes rape because consent is vitiated by her mental condition.
The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing the civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000.00 each and exemplary damages to P30,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.