Aman was convicted beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
punishable under the Revised Penal Code. The victim, a 39-year-old
woman, was mentally retarded. She suffered from “moderate mental
retardation with a mental age of (6) six years and (8) months and an IQ
of (41) forty-one.”
One afternoon, as the victim was standing outside her house and
holding her dog, a man approached her and gave her P200.00 to buy some
junk food from the sari-sari store. Afterwards, he convinced her to
accompany him to his house, located near a cemetery in Caloocan City.
Once inside his house, he told the girl to lay down on the floor and
remove her clothes. After raping her, he told her to dress herself. To
make matters worse, he took her cellphone, and used the money he earned
from selling it to buy drinks for his friends who were already drinking
outside his house.
During trial, the victim was able to positively identify the man who
raped her and clearly communicate what happened to her that day. The
accused, of course, denied the rape and said that he was drinking with
his friends at the time of occurrence. In addition, he was not aware of
the mental state of the accused even if she lived with him for four
months in the past. Lastly, the victim’s sole testimony, the accused
argued, cannot convict a man for rape beyond reasonable doubt,
especially when she was a mental retardate.
The Supreme Court (SC) found the victim’s testimony straightforward,
clear, and concise. Also, the victim never wavered in her assertion that
the accused raped her. More importantly, the Court held that a mental
retardate can be a credible witness so long as she could clearly account
and communicate the crime committed -
The fact of AAA’s mental retardation did not impair the credibility
of her testimony. Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility.
A mentally retarded may be a credible witness. The acceptance of her
testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she
can make them known to the court.
The SC also clarified that under the crime of rape, as provided in
Art. 266-A and Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, “when rape is
committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim’s mental
retardation, the penalty is increased to death.” This circumstance must
be alleged in the information to change the nature of the offense from
simple to qualified rape.
Despite the accused’s denial of knowing about the victim’s mental
condition, the SC ruled that he had voluntarily informed the court that
the victim had lived with him for four (4) months in his house. Thus, it
was logical to assume that the accused was fully aware of victim’s
mental condition.
Lastly, when qualified rape is committed and sufficiently proven in
court, the penalty provided by law is the death penalty. However, RA No.
9346 has prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, the SC
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole. Moreover, the Court reiterated the rule that qualified rape
entitles the victim to an award of moral and exemplary damages (People v. Rosales, G.R. No. 197537, 24 July 2013, J. Perez).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
