G.R. No. 176069; October 5, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MARIO CONSTANTINO, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Mario Constantino, was charged with three counts of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The victim, AAA, was a 15-year-old girl with a mental age of a 7-year-old. Her pregnancy, discovered by her grandmother BBB in February 1995, led to a barangay confrontation where AAA positively identified Constantino as the perpetrator, while excluding two other suspects. AAA testified that Constantino raped her three times under a duhat tree, threatening her with a bolo on the first two occasions. She stated she enjoyed the third instance. Constantino denied the charges, presenting an alibi that he was working in Zambales and had not been in Pangasinan during the alleged period.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Constantino of two counts of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each, but acquitted him of the third count due to AAA’s admission of enjoyment, which the court interpreted as negating force or intimidation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that AAA’s mental condition explained inconsistencies in her testimony and that her positive identification was credible.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for two counts of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court sustained the conviction for two counts of rape but modified the civil liabilities. The legal logic centered on the elements of rape and the credibility of the victim’s testimony. For statutory rape under Article 335, carnal knowledge with a woman whose mental age is below twelve is rape, irrespective of consent. The Court clarified that the trial court erred in acquitting the third count based on the victim’s claimed enjoyment, as her mental deficiency rendered any consent legally irrelevant. However, reversing this acquittal would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, so the two convictions stood.
Regarding the proven counts, the Court found all elements present. Force and intimidation were established by the threat with a bolo. The victim’s positive identification prevailed over Constantino’s weak defenses of denial and alibi, which the trial court found not physically impossible. The Court rejected the claim of coaching, noting it was unnatural for a grandmother to subject the victim to a rape trial’s scandal. The award of civil indemnity was increased to ₱100,000 (₱50,000 per count). Furthermore, pursuant to Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code, Constantino was ordered to provide support for the offspring, with the amount to be determined by the trial court in a proper proceeding.