G.R. No. 92504 May 18, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Welli Quiñones, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On June 5, 1989, in Esperanza, Bacolod, Lanao del Norte, Pedrita Diangco, a 25-year-old mental retardate, was sent by her mother to fetch water. Accused-appellant Welli Quiñones, a neighbor, waylaid her, grabbed her neck, dragged her, forced her to lie down, removed her panties, bit her breast, and had sexual intercourse with her. After Pedrita failed to return for over an hour and a half, her mother found her in tears, and Pedrita recounted the rape. Her mother found her vagina bleeding. The incident was reported, and Pedrita was examined the next day by Dr. Lilia Morales-Cacho, who found hymenal lacerations and abrasions and noted Pedrita was abnormal. Pedrita executed a sworn statement identifying Quiñones as her rapist. An Amended Information for rape was filed, alleging the victim was a “retardate possessing a mental capacity comparable to a child below 12 years of age.” The prosecution presented testimonies from Pedrita’s mother (Marcosa Diangco), Dr. Cacho, and a neighbor (Felix Molo), establishing Pedrita’s mental retardation: she had physical deformities, started walking at age five, was refused by schools, could not identify calendar days or know the value of money, had the mentality of a child, and played with children aged three to five. Pedrita testified to the acts of choking, being laid down, her panties being removed, and penetration by the appellant’s penis. The defense submitted the case without presenting evidence. The trial court convicted Quiñones of rape.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the victim, a mental retardate, gave or was capable of giving consent to the sexual intercourse, thereby determining if rape was committed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Rape is committed under circumstances including when the woman is deprived of reason. The evidence conclusively established that Pedrita Diangco was a mental retardate, deprived of reason, and thus incapable of giving rational consent. Her mental deficiency was demonstrated by her physical deformities, inability to write or identify days, mentality of a three- or four-year-old, and playmates of tender age, all unrefuted by the defense. The Court cited authority that carnal knowledge of a woman so weak in intellect as to be incapable of legal consent constitutes rape, and the absence of force or resistance is inconsequential in such cases. The Court also dismissed the appellant’s argument regarding a variance in the date of the incident, noting the date is not an essential element of rape and the reference to “June 8” appeared to be a typographical error. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with the modification that accused-appellant must indemnify the victim in the amount of P30,000.00.