G.R. No. 93752 July 15, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LAROY BUENAFLOR y TUAZON alias “Larry,” defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Laroy Buenaflor, was charged with and convicted of rape for an incident occurring on or about August 19, 1989, in Naga City. The information alleged that he, by means of force, threats, and intimidation, committed sexual intercourse against Isabella Federis against her will and consent. The trial court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P30,000.00.
The prosecution evidence, as summarized by the trial court, established that on the night of August 19, 1989, Isabella Federis, a 21-year-old student, was walking home with her boardmate Imelda Barcebal when the appellant, armed with a knife, approached from behind, put his arm on her shoulder, and poked the knife at her side, threatening to kill her if she moved. When she called for Imelda, her companion ran away. The appellant then moved the knife to her neck, dragged her to a darker area, removed her clothes and his own, and, despite her crying and resistance, inserted his penis into her vagina, threatening to kill her if she shouted. After the act, Isabella pretended to agree to go with him but requested to first get her clothes and money from her boarding house. The appellant accompanied her, and upon reaching near her boarding house, she told him to wait. She then informed her boardmates about the rape, described the appellant, and the police were called. The police apprehended a person matching the description, and Isabella identified him as the appellant at the police headquarters and identified the knife used.
The appellant did not seriously deny the sexual intercourse but claimed Isabella consented and did not resist, even embracing him. He also testified he was “a little bit drunk” at the time. His principal defense was the presence of mitigating circumstances, specifically imbecility (mental retardation) and drunkenness. A pretrial psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Imelda Escuadra diagnosed appellant with mild mental retardation (IQ of 63) and reactive depression, but found he was not psychotic and was capable of undergoing judicial trial with difficulty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstances of imbecility and drunkenness in convicting the appellant of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto, holding that neither mitigating circumstance was sufficiently established to warrant a reduction of the penalty.
1. On the claim of imbecility: The Court found that the appellant’s condition of mild mental retardation did not constitute the exempting circumstance of imbecility under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. The psychiatric report indicated he had below-normal intelligence, poor memory, judgment, and comprehension, but was not psychotic and was capable of standing trial, albeit with difficulty. The Court ruled that for imbecility to be an exempting circumstance, there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence, meaning the accused had no comprehension of the act he was committing. The appellant’s condition did not meet this standard, as he demonstrated an awareness of his actions, including his admission of poking a knife at the victim and his attempt to justify the act by claiming consent.
2. On the claim of drunkenness: The Court found the appellant’s claim of intoxication was not sufficiently proven. The sole basis was his own testimony during cross-examination that he was “a little bit drunk.” The Court held that for intoxication to be mitigating, the accused must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage sufficient to blur his reason prior to the crime, and that such intoxication was not habitual nor intended to fortify his resolve to commit the crime. The appellant’s bare assertion did not meet this burden of proof.
Furthermore, the Court noted that even if a mitigating circumstance were appreciated, it would not alter the penalty. The crime of rape, as punishable under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended at the time, carried the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is a single indivisible penalty. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, such a penalty shall be applied regardless of any mitigating circumstances.
Therefore, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity were affirmed.