G.R. No. L-61126. January 31, 1985.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MELECIO ASTURIAS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the rape of Vilma Ortega, a 17-year-old neighbor of the accused, Melecio Asturias. On the evening of November 1, 1972, Asturias asked Vilma to fetch water. After she complied, he brought her to a room on the second floor of his house, closed the door, undressed her, and had sexual intercourse with her. The act was witnessed by Vilma’s brother, Flavio Ortega, who saw her naked and being embraced by Asturias. When confronted, Vilma revealed that Asturias had intercourse with her for one peso and threatened her not to tell anyone. The incident was immediately reported to authorities.
Medical and psychiatric evidence established Vilma’s mental condition. Dr. Mateo Solidarios, a mental health specialist, diagnosed her with chronic brain disorder due to a childhood head injury, concluding she was a moderate mental retardate with a mentality lower than that of a seven-year-old child. Dr. Jose Rafio’s physical examination confirmed she was no longer a virgin, with findings consistent with sexual intercourse. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Asturias was hosting a drinking session at the time, and argued Vilma was sane and capable of consent.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the carnal knowledge of a 17-year-old female with the mental capacity of a child under seven years old constitutes rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, even absent force or intimidation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the application of Article 335, paragraph 3, which defines rape as committed when the woman is “deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.” The Court held that Vilma Ortega’s profound mental retardation, equating her understanding to that of a child under seven, placed her in a state of being “deprived of reason.” Consequently, she was incapable of giving rational consent to the sexual act. Any apparent submission was not consent but a result of her mental deficiency, which rendered her unable to comprehend the nature of the act or offer effective resistance. The crime is thus rape by statutory construction, analogous to the protection afforded to children under twelve, ensuring state protection for individuals with weak mental capacity against exploitation.
Regarding the penalty, the Court sustained the imposition of reclusion perpetua, noting that Republic Act No. 4111 had increased the penalty for rape from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, an indivisible penalty where the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply. The award of civil indemnity was increased from P12,000 to P20,000 in line with the mandate under Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code to indemnify the offended party. The defense’s alibi was rejected for being weak and uncorroborated against the positive identification and medical evidence presented by the prosecution.