G.R. No. 236305 , March 17, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LOUIE C. VILLENA @ ISIT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Louie C. Villena was charged with rape for allegedly having sexual intercourse with AAA, a person with a mentally retarded disorder, on March 17, 2011, in Sto. Tomas, La Union. During trial, AAA testified that Villena, while drunk, entered her room, strangled her, removed her clothes, fondled her breast, inserted his penis inside her, and threatened to kill her. Her grandmother, DDD, saw Villena arrive and go towards the east of the house, and shortly after, AAA emerged crying with red marks on her neck. AAA’s brother, CCC, and mother, BBB, corroborated seeing the injuries and her distressed state. A medico-legal certificate confirmed “blunt force or penetrating trauma” in AAA’s vagina. Dr. Jovy Anne J. Tangalin, a psychiatrist, testified that AAA had mild mental retardation with a mental age of 9-12 years old. The Regional Trial Court found Villena guilty of qualified rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed his guilt but modified the crime to simple rape, holding that the Information failed to allege Villena’s knowledge of AAA’s mental condition. Villena appealed, arguing that AAA’s intellectual disability was not proven and that she was an incompetent witness.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found accused-appellant Louie C. Villena guilty of rape.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly found accused-appellant guilty, but the Supreme Court further modified the designation of the crime. The Supreme Court held that the rape of an intellectually disabled person whose mental age is below 12 years old is statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. All elements were proven: (1) AAA, who was over 18 years old chronologically, had a mental age of 9-12 years old as per the psychiatric evaluation; (2) Villena had carnal knowledge of AAA, as established by her credible testimony and the medico-legal findings; and (3) the sexual intercourse was accomplished even without force or intimidation due to AAA’s mental disability, which renders her incapable of giving consent. The Court affirmed AAA’s competence as a witness, noting her ability to perceive and narrate the incident when asked simple questions. Villena’s denial could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification and credible testimony. The Court modified the penalties and damages, imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 each, with 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.