G.R. No. 96848 January 21, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO SALOMON Y OLPANGO @ “ALE”, @ “BOYET” and FELICIANO CONGE @ PEPING, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On October 11, 1987, Sylvia Soria, a 20-year-old mental retardate, was walking along the Maharlika Highway in Gandara, Samar. Accused-appellants Alejandro Salomon and Feliciano Conge accosted her, forcibly took her to a nearby ricefield, and there Salomon raped her with Conge’s assistance. After the incident, Sylvia reported the rape to her brother and father. They went to the police station that same night, and her father filed a complaint. Sylvia was medically examined by Dr. Susan Tanseco, who found a single, linear laceration on her labia minora, isolated erythematous areas on both thighs, and sandy particles on the genital area. The accused fled and were arrested in Masbate four months later. They were charged with rape. During the trial, Sylvia testified in detail about the rape. The defense presented a different version, claiming Conge, after being hit by Sylvia with a piece of wood, pushed her to the ground and, in anger, thrust his five fingers into her vagina, causing the laceration. The defense also argued that Sylvia’s testimony was unreliable due to her mental condition and that the charge was fabricated due to a land conflict between their fathers. The trial court convicted both accused of rape as conspirators and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, plus damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants of rape based on the testimony of a mental retardate and in rejecting their defense that the vaginal laceration was caused by manual penetration (fingers) and not by a penis.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. The Court held that:
1. A mental retardate is not disqualified from being a witness. The acceptance of her testimony depends on its credibility, clarity, and consistency. The trial court found Sylvia’s testimony to be positive, clear, plain, coherent, and credible despite her slurred speech and the need for some leading questions. The Court cited precedents where testimonies of mentally deficient rape victims were upheld.
2. The defense’s theory of “manual rape” was rejected as absurd, comical, and unsupported by credible evidence. The testimonies of the defense witnesses were inconsistent on material points (e.g., how many times Sylvia hit Conge, what clothing she wore, how far her pants were pulled down, and the manner of finger penetration).
3. The alleged motive for fabrication (hostility between the fathers) was deemed far-fetched and insufficient to make a parent subject his daughter to the humiliation of a rape trial.
4. The absence of spermatozoa in the medical examination does not negate rape, as there could be valid explanations such as washing away or failure to ejaculate.
5. The accused’s flight to Masbate, use of an alias, and failure to buy horses as claimed, instead spending the money on leisure, indicated guilt and an escape from justice.
The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility was upheld. The award of moral, exemplary, and actual damages and attorney’s fees was disallowed, but the civil indemnity of P30,000.00 was retained. The appeal was dismissed.