5/26/2017 G.R.No.

168932

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHE G.R.No.168932
PHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee, Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
versus BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,and
VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.

Promulgated:
CHARLIEBUTIONG,
DefendantAppellant. October19,2011
xx

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

This case involves a man who had sexual intercourse with a woman who, although 29
yearsofage,wasamentalretardatewiththementalityofasixtosevenyearold.

Theman,CharlieButiong,seeksthereviewandreversalofthejudgmentpromulgatedon
[1]
May18,2005, wherebytheCourtofAppeals(CA)affirmedhisconvictionforrapehanded
down by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258, in Paraaque City, for which he was
imposedreclusionperpetua.HeinsiststhattheStatedidnotdulyestablishthatthewomanhad
beenamentalretardate.

The records show that Butiong had been arraigned and tried under an information that
alleged:

xxxx
That on or about the 7th day of October 1998, in the City of Paraaque, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 1/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

willfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgeofthecomplainant[AAA],amental
retardate,againstherwillandconsent.

[2]
CONTRARYTOLAW.

Antecedents

[3]
In the evening of October 7, 1998, AAA, then a 29yearold mental retardate, was
invitedbyButiong,herlongtimeneighbor,togoovertohishousebecausehewouldgiveher
something.AAAobliged.Helockedthedoorassoonasshehadsteppedinsidehishouse,and
then took off his shorts and the shorts of AAA. He led her to the sofa, where he had carnal
knowledgeofher.AAArememberedthatshethenfeltpaininherabdomenandbecameangryat
[4]
himforwhathehaddone.

Uponreachinghome,AAAforthwithtoldheroldersisterwhathadhappened.Hersister
[5]
broughtAAAtothepolicestation, andlaterontotheNationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI),
whereAAAunderwentamedicolegalexaminationbyDr.ArmieM.SoretaUmil.Themedico
legalexaminationrevealedthatAAAshymenwasintactbutdistensibleanditsorificewide(2.5
cms. in diameter) as to allow complete penetration by an averagesized adult Filipino male
[6]
organinfullerectionwithoutproducinganygenitalinjury. NoticingAAAsdisorientationand
[7]
incoherence, Dr. SoretaUmil endorsed her to the NBI Psychiatric Section for evaluation.
AAAalsounderwentaseriesofpsychologicaltestsattheNationalMentalHospital.Thetests
includedtheRavensProgressiveMatricesTest,BenderVisualMotorGestaltTest,andDrawa
PersonTest.ARorschachPsychoDiagnosticTestwasnotusedbecauseAAAwasnotableto
[8]
answer. Another test, the Sacks Sentence Completion Test, was not used because of AAAs
[9]
inabilitytocomplywiththeinstructions. The results of the psychological tests showed that
shehadamildlevelofmentalretardation,andthathermentalagewasthatofachildagedfrom
six to seven years she was unaware of what went on around her and was interested only in
[10]
gratifyingherownneeds.

TheDefensepresentedonlyonewitnessinthepersonofDr.NatividadDayan,whomit
offeredasanexpertpsychologist.SheconcludedthattheRavensProgressiveMatricesTestand
theBenderVisualMotorGestaltTestadministeredonAAAwereunreliablefordeterminingthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 2/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

existence of mental retardation. She based her conclusion on James Morizons DSM4 Made
Easy: The Clinicians Guide for Diagnosis, and Jay Siskins Coping With Psychiatric and
[11]
Psychological Testimony. According to her, an individually administered intelligence test,
liketheStampIntelligenceScaleortheWeschlerAdultIntelligenceScale,aswellasprojective
techniques,liketheRorschachPsychodiagnosticTestandtheThematicPerceptionTest,should
[12]
havebeeninsteadadministeredtoappropriatelydetermineAAAsmentalage.

RulingoftheRTC

TheRTCrenderedjudgmentfindingButiongguiltyofrape,viz:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having been able to prove the guilt of the accused
CHARLIE BUTIONG beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple RAPE defined and
punishableunderArt.266Apar.1inrelationtoArt.266Bpar.1oftheRevisedPenalCodeas
amendedbyR.A.8353,accusedCHARLIEBUTIONGisherebysentencedtosufferthepenalty
ofRECLUSIONPERPETUA.

Pursuanttotheexistingjurisprudence,accusedCHARLIEBUTIONGisfurtherorderedto
indemnify the private complainant, AAA, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00asmoraldamagesandP25,000.00asandbywayofexemplarydamages.

Nopronouncementastocosts.

[13]
SOORDERED.

The RTC noted that nothing in Dr. Dayans testimony on the unreliability of the tests
administeredonAAAwouldinvalidatethefindingsofpsychologistNimiadeGuzmanandDr.
DianadeCastro,bothoftheNationalCenterforMentalHealth,totheeffectthatAAAhadmild
level retardation with a mental age of a six to sevenyear old person and that such findings
were admissible and had more than sufficiently complied with the required historical and
[14]
physicalexaminationfordeterminingAAAsmentalcondition.Thetrialjudgehimselfheld,
basedonhispersonalobservationofAAAasawitnessincourt,thatshewasaretardatewho
couldnarratewhathadtranspiredalbeitwithsomedifficultyabouthowshehadbeensexually
abused.HeconsideredAAAasacompetentwitnesswhosebehaviorandappearancemanifested
nopossibilityforhertoconcoctastoryofherdeflorationatthehandsoftheaccused.

RulingoftheCA

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 3/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

[15]
Butiongappealed,buttheCAaffirmedtheconvictiononMay18,2005, towit:

Insum,theCourtseesnocogentreasontodepartfromthewellentrencheddoctrinethatthe
trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect because of its
opportunity to hear their testimonies and observe their demeanor and manner of testifying.
Absentanyshowingthatthetrialcourtoverlookedormisappreciatedsomefactsorcircumstances
of weight and substance which would affect the result of the case, the Court sees no reason to
alterthefindingsofthetrialcourt.

WHEREFORE,theappealedDecisiondatedFebruary24,2003isaffirmedintoto.

SOORDERED.


TheCAconsideredtheStatesevidencesufficienttosupporttheconclusionthatAAAwas
mentallyretarded.ItconcludedthattheStatesexpertwitnesspsychologistdeGuzmanhadnot
only interviewed AAA and a relative of AAA but had also administered a series of tests on
AAA upon which to base her findings about AAAs mental condition that the results of the
psychiatricexaminationdonebyDr.deCastro,aswellasthetrialjudgespersonalobservation
that AAA was a mental retardate supported the findings of psychologist de Guzman and that
[16]
AAA could not legally give her consent to the sexual act, as held in People v. Asturias,
becausetheclinicalfindingsshowedhermentalitytobeatparwiththatofasixorsevenyear
old.

TheCArejectedButiongsargumentthatrapewasnotestablishedbecausenosemenhad
been taken from AAA, stressing that the fact of rape depended not on the presence of
spermatozoabutonthefactofunlawfulpenetrationofthefemalegenitaliabythemaleorgan,
whichtheStateamplyproved.

Issues

Inthisappeal,Butiongsubmitsthat:

I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PROOF OF THE DATE OF THE
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE IS NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO CONVICT THE
ACCUSEDAPPELLANT.

II

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 4/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

THETRIALCOURTERREDINFINDINGTHATTHEOFFENDEDPARTYISAMENTAL
RETARDATE.

III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT A MENTAL RETARDATE IS IN THE
SAMECLASSASAWOMANDEPRIVEDOFREASONOROTHERWISEUNCONSCIOUS.

Anent the first assigned error, Butiong contends that the State did not establish rape
because there was no evidence showing the exact date when the rape occurred. Under the
second assigned error, he disputes the RTCs conclusion that AAA was a mental retardate by
focusingontheinconclusivenessofthefindingsofpsychologistdeGuzmanbroughtaboutby
her failure to ascertain AAAs personal history and by her computing AAAs mental age upon
inaccurate and unverified information. He notes that two other physicians who had examined
AAA, one from the NBI and the other from the National Center for Mental Health, were not
presentedaswitnesses.Heinsistsonhisinnocence,andemphasizesthetestimonyofDr.Dayan
ontheunreliabilityofthetestsadministeredonAAA.Hemaintainsthattheunreliabilityofthe
tests administered on AAA for determining the presence of mental retardation should be
[17]
appreciated in his favor in accordance with People v. Cartuano, Jr., which required that a
diagnosisofmentalretardationshouldbemadeafterathoroughevaluationbasedonhistory,and
physical and laboratory examinations by a clinician. Lastly, he posits that the State did not
establishtheelementsofrape,consideringthatamentalretardatequalifiedneitherasawoman
deprivedofreasonnorasawomanundertwelveyearsofageasprovidedunderArticle266A
par.1(b)norofpar.1(d)oftheRevisedPenalCode.



Ruling

Weaffirmtheconviction.

I
Exactdateofrapeandabsenceofspermatozoa
fromvictimsgenitaliaarenotelementsofrape

ButiongarguesthattheStatedidnotdulyestablishthefactofrapebecausetheexactdate
of the incident was indeterminate, and because no spermatozoa was found in AAAs genital

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 5/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

organ.

Theargumentdeservesnoconsideration.

TheCAfullydebunkedtheargumentontheexactdateoftherapenotbeingestablished
[18]
bysimplyquotingfromAAAstestimonythattherapehadoccurredonOctober7,1998. We
needtoemphasize,however,thatthedateoftherapeneednotbepreciselyprovedconsidering
[19]
thatdateisnotanelementofrape.

Nor did the absence of spermatozoa from the genitalia of AAA negate or disprove the
[20]
rape. Thebasicelementofrapeiscarnalknowledgeorsexualintercourse,notejaculation.
[21]
Carnalknowledgeisdefinedastheactofamanhavingsexualbodilyconnectionswitha
[22]
woman. Thisexplainswhytheslightestpenetrationofthefemalegenitaliaconsummatesthe
rape.Assuch,ameretouchingoftheexternalgenitaliabythepeniscapableofconsummating
[23] [24]
thesexualactalreadyconstitutesconsummatedrape. Peoplev.Campuhan has aimed to
removeanyconfusionastotheextentoftouchinginrape:

[T]ouchingwhenappliedtorapecasesdoesnotsimplymeanmereepidermalcontact,
strokingorgrazingoforgans,aslightbrushorascrapeofthepenisontheexternallayerof
the victims vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and
convincingproofthatthepenisindeedtouchedthelabiasorslidintothefemaleorgan,and
not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of
consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be touched by the penis, are by
theirnaturalsitusorlocationbeneaththemonspubisorthevaginalsurface,totouchthem
with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the
conclusionthattouchingthelabiamajora or the labiaminora of the pudendum constitutes
consummatedrape.

Thepudendumorvulvaisthecollectivetermforthefemalegenitalorgansthatarevisible
in the perineal area, e.g., mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, the hymen, the clitoris, the
vaginalorifice,etc.Themonspubis is the rounded eminence that becomes hairy after puberty,
andisinstantlyvisiblewithinthesurface.Thenextlayeristhelabiamajoraortheouterlipsof
the female organ composed of the outer convex surface and the inner surface. The skin of the
outerconvexsurfaceiscoveredwithhairfolliclesandispigmented,whiletheinnersurfaceisa
thinskinwhichdoesnothaveanyhairbuthasmanysebaceousglands.Directlybeneaththelabia
majoraisthelabiaminora.Jurisprudencedictatesthatthelabiamajoramustbeenteredforrape
tobeconsummated,andnotmerelyforthepenistostrokethesurfaceofthefemaleorgan.Thus,
agrazingofthesurfaceofthefemaleorganortouchingthemonspubisofthepudendumis
not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest
penetrationofthefemaleorgan,i.e.,touchingofeitherlabiaofthepudendumbythepenis,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 6/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

there can be no consummated rape at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of
[25]
lasciviousness. [emphasissupplied]

ThatAAAsrecollectionontherapewascorroboratedbytheresultsofthemedicolegal
examinationwassufficientproofoftheconsummationofrape.Wehaveruledthatrapecanbe
established by the sole testimony of the victim that is credible and untainted with serious
[26]
uncertainty. Withmorereasonisthistruewhenthemedicalfindingssupportedthetestimony
[27]
ofthevictim, likeherein.

II
RapewascommittedbecauseAAA
wasamentalretardate

One of Butiongs contentions is that having sexual intercourse with AAA, a mental
retardate,didnotamounttoarape,becauseitcouldnotbeconsideredascarnalknowledgeofa
womandeprivedofreasonorofafemaleundertwelveyearsofageasprovidedunderArticle
266AoftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended.

Thecontentioncannotbesustained.

Rapeisessentiallyacrimecommittedthroughforceorintimidation,thatis,against the
willofthefemale.Itisalsocommittedwithoutforceorintimidationwhencarnalknowledgeofa
femaleisallegedandshowntobewithoutherconsent.Thisunderstandingofthecommissionof
rapehasbeenprevalentinboththecommonlawandthestatutorylawsystems.AsCorpusJuris
[28]
Secundumhassummedup:

Atcommonlawrapecouldbecommittedonlywheretheunlawfulcarnalknowledge
ofafemalewashadwithoutherconsentoragainstherwilllackofconsentwasanessential
element of the offense and there can be no rape in the commonlaw sense without the
elementoflackofconsent.Underthestatutespunishingtheoffense,anessentialelementof
thecrimeofrapeisthattheactwascommittedwithouttheconsentofthefemale,or,asitis
otherwise expressed, against her will. The act of sexual intercourse is against the females
will or without her consent when, for any cause, she is not in a position to exercise any
judgmentaboutthematter.

Carnalknowledgeofthefemalewithherconsentisnotrape,providedsheisabovethe
ageofconsentoriscapableintheeyesofthelawofgivingconsent.Thus,merecopulation,
withthewomanpassivelyacquiescent,doesnotconstituterape.Thefemalemustnotatany
time consent her consent, given at any time prior to penetration, however reluctantly
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 7/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

given,orifaccompaniedwithmereverbalprotestsandrefusals,preventstheactfrombeing
rape, provided the consent is willing and free of initial coercion. Thus, where a man takes
hold of a woman against her will and she afterward consents to intercourse before the act is
committed, his act is not rape. However, where the female consents, but then withdraws her
consentbeforepenetration,andtheactisaccomplishedbyforce,itisrapeandwhereawoman
offerstoallowamantohaveintercoursewithheroncertainconditionsandherefusestocomply
withtheconditions,butaccomplishestheactwithoutherconsent,heisguiltyofrape.[emphasis
supplied]

[29]
InhiscommentaryontheRevisedPenalCode, JusticeAquinodiscussestheconcept
ofcommittingrapeagainstthefemaleswillorwithoutherconsent,towit:

Inrapecommittedbymeansofduress,thevictimswillisnullifiedordestroyed.Hence,the
necessityofprovingrealandconstantresistanceonthepartofthewomantoestablishthattheact
wascommittedagainstherwill.Ontheotherhand,intherapeofawomandeprivedofreasonor
unconscious,thevictimhasnowill.Theabsenceofwilldeterminestheexistenceoftherape.
Suchlackofwillmayexistnotonlywhenthevictimisunconsciousortotallydeprivedof
reason,butalsowhensheissufferingsomementaldeficiencyimpairingherreasonorfree
will. In that case, it is not necessary that she should offer real opposition or constant
resistancetothesexualintercourse.Carnalknowledgeofawomansoweakinintellectasto
be incapable of legal consent constitutes rape. Where the offended woman was feeble
minded,sicklyandalmostanidiot,sexualintercoursewithherisrape.Herfailuretooffer
resistance to the act did not mean consent for she was incapable of giving any rational
consent.

Thedeprivationofreasonneednotbecomplete.Mentalabnormalityordeficiencyis
enough.Cohabitationwithafeebleminded,idioticwomanisrape.Sexualintercoursewith
an insane woman was considered rape. But a deafmute is not necessarily deprived of
reason. This circumstances must be proven. Intercourse with a deafmute is not rape of a
womandeprivedofreason,intheabsenceofproofthatsheisanimbecile.Viadasaysthat
the rapeunderpar. 2 may be committed when the offended woman is deprivedofreason
due to any cause such as when she is asleep, or due to lethargy produced by sickness or
narcoticsadministeredtoherbytheaccused.xxx[emphasissupplied]

Butiongwasarraigned,triedandconvictedofthecrimeofrapeasdefinedandpenalized
underparagraph1,Article266A,inrelationtoparagraph1,Article266BoftheRevisedPenal
Code,asamended,underanamendedinformationthatplainlyaverredthatAAAwasamental
retardate.Theinsertionofthephraseintheamendedinformationwassignificant,becausethe
phrase put him on sufficient notice that the victim was not in full possession of her normal
[30]
reasoning faculty. The phrase further specifically indicated which of the four modes of
committing the crime of rape as provided in paragraph 1, Article 266A of the Revised Penal
Code,asamended,appliedinhiscase,namely:

a.Throughforce,threatorintimidation
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 8/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

b.Whentheoffendedpartyisdeprivedofreasonorisotherwiseunconscious

c.Bymeansoffraudulentmachinationorgraveabuseofauthority

d.Whentheoffendedpartyisunder12yearsofage,orisdemented,eventhough
noneofthecircumstancesfirstmentionedispresent.

Yet,Butiongscontentionisthathiscasedidnotcomeunderanyofthefourmodesdueto
carnalknowledgeofamentalretardatenotbeingeithercarnalknowledgeofafemaledeprived
ofreasonorotherwiseunconscious,orofafemaleunder12yearsofageordemented.

Thecontentionisunwarranted.

Article 266A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,
provides:

Article266A.RapeWhenAndHowCommitted.Rapeiscommitted

1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a)Throughforce,threatorintimidation

b)Whentheoffendedpartyisdeprivedofreasonorotherwiseunconscious

c)Bymeansoffraudulentmachinationorgraveabuseofauthorityand

d)Whentheoffendedpartyisundertwelve(12)yearsofageorisdemented,eventhough
noneofthecircumstancesmentionedabovebepresent.

2)By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shallcommitanactofsexualassaultbyinsertinghispenisintoanotherpersonsmouthoranal
orifice,oranyinstrumentorobjectintothegenitaloranalorificeofanotherperson.

Carnalknowledgeofamentalretardateisrapeunderparagraph1ofArticle266Aofthe
RevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.8353becauseamentalretardateisnot
capableofgivingherconsenttoasexualact.Proofofforceorintimidationisnotnecessary,it
beingsufficientfortheStatetoestablish,one,thesexualcongressbetweentheaccusedandthe
[31]
victim,and,two,thementalretardationofthevictim. Itshouldnolongerbedebatablethat
rape of a mental retardate falls under paragraph 1, b), of Article 266A, supra, because the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 9/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

provision refers to a rape of a female deprived of reason, a phrase that refers to mental
[32]
abnormality,deficiencyorretardation.

Who,then,isamentalretardatewithinthecontextofthephrasedeprivedofreasonused
intheRevisedPenalCode?

[33]
In People v. Dalandas, the Court renders the following exposition on mental
retardationanditsvariouslevels,viz:

Mental retardation is a chronic condition present from birth or early childhood and
characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by standardized tests. It
manifests itself in impaired adaptation to the daily demands of the individuals own social
environment. Commonly, a mental retardate exhibits a slow rate of maturation, physical
and/orpsychological,aswellasimpairedlearningcapacity.

Althoughmentalretardationisoftenusedinterchangeablywithmentaldeficiency,thelatter
term is usually reserved for those without recognizable brain pathology. The degrees of mental
retardationaccordingtotheirlevelofintellectualfunctionareillustrated,thus:

MentalRetardation

LEVELDESCRIPTIONTERMINTELLIGENCEQUOTIENT
(IQRANGE)

IProfoundBelow20
IISevere2035
IIIModerate3652
IVMild5368

xxxx
The traditional but now obsolescent terms applied to those degrees of mental
retardation were (a) idiot, having an IQ of 0 to 19, and a maximum intellectual factor in
adultlifeequivalenttothatoftheaveragetwoyearoldchild(b)imbecilebyanIQof20to
49andamaximumintellectualfunctioninadultlifeequivalenttothatoftheaverageseven
yearoldchildmoronorfeebleminded,havinganIQof50to69andamaximumintellectual
function in adult life equivalent to that of theaverage twelveyear old child. Psychiatrists
andpsychologistsapplythetermborderlineintelligencetothosewithIQbetween70to89.
InPeoplevs.Palma,weruledthatapersonisguiltyofrapewhenhehadsexualintercourse
withafemalewhowassufferingfromaborderlinementaldeficiency.[emphasissupplied]


Considering the findings of psychologist de Guzman to the effect that AAA had the
mental age of a six to sevenyear old, an age equated with imbecility under the previous
classification,hermentalagewasevenlowerthanthatofaborderlinementaldeficiencywithin

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 10/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

[34]
the context of that term as characterized in People v. Dalandas, supra. As such, Butiongs
carnalknowledgeofAAAamountedtorapeofapersondeprivedofreason.

The ability of the female to given rational consent to carnal intercourse determines if
carnal knowledge of a mental retardate like AAA is rape. Indeed, the Court has consistently
consideredcarnalknowledgeofafemalementalretardatewiththementalagebelow12yearsof
[35]
ageasrapeofawomandeprivedofreason. AstheCourtaptlystatedinPeoplev.Manlapaz,
[36]
wherethevictimwasa13yearoldgirlwiththementalityofafiveyearold,thatabilityto
giverationalconsentwasnotpresent,viz:

Sexualintercoursewithawomanwhoisdeprivedofreasonorwithagirlwhoisbelow
twelveyearsofageisrapebecausesheisincapableofgivingrationalconsenttothecarnal
intercourse.Lasmujeresprivadasderazon,enajenadas,idiotas,imbeciles,sonincapacespor
su estado mental de apreciar la ofensa que el culpable infiere a su honestidad y, por tanto,
incapacesdeconsentir.Perono es condicion precisa que la carencia de razon sea completa,
basta la abnormalidad o deficiencia mental que solo la disminuye, sin embargo, la
jurisprudenceesdiscordante(IICuelloCalon,DerechoPenal,14thEd.,1975,pp.5389).

Cometeviolacionelqueyacemujerquenotienenormalmentedesarrolladassusfacultades
mentales(19nov.1930)aquiestacomprendidoelyacimientocondebilesoretrasadosmentales
(11mayo1932,25feb.1948,27sept.1951)constituyeestedelitoelcoitoconunaniade15aos
enferma de epilepsia genuina que carece de capacidad para conocer el valor de sus actos (2
marzo1953)elyacimientoconoligofrenicas(mentallydeficientpersons)28abril,24octubre,
1956,19feb.1958)xxx(ibid.,note3).

The same rule prevails in American jurisprudence. There can be no question but that a
copulationwithawomanknowntobementallyincapableofgivingevenanimperfectconsentis
rape(Statevs.Jewett,192At.7).

An accused is guilty of the crime of rape when it is established that he had sexual
intercoursewithafemalewhowasmentallyincapableofvalidlyconsentingtooropposingthe
carnalact(65AmJur2nd766citingStatevs.Prokosch,152Minn.86,187NW971Cokeleyvs.
State,87Tex.Crim.256,220SW109931ALR3rd1227,sec.3).

Inthisspeciesofrapeneitherforceuponthepartofamannorresistanceuponthepartofa
womanformsanelementofthecrime.If,byreasonofanymentalweakness,sheisincapableof
legallyconsenting,resistanceisnotexpectedanymorethanitisinthecaseofonewhohasbeen
druggedtounconsciousness,orrobbedofjudgmentbyintoxicants.Norwillanapparentconsent
insuchacaseavailanymorethaninthecaseofachildwhomayactuallyconsent,butwhoby
law is conclusively held incapable of legal consent. Whether the woman possessed mental
capacitysufficienttogivelegalconsentmust,savinginexceptionalcases,remainaquestionof
fact xxx. It need but be said that legal consent presupposes an intelligence capable of
understanding the act, its nature, and possible consequences. This degree of intelligence may
exist with an impaired and weakened intellect, or it may not (People vs. Boggs, 290 Pac. 618
citingPeoplevs.Griffin,49Pac.711andPeoplevs.Peery,146Pac.44).[emphasissupplied]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 11/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

III
Peoplev.Cartuanowasnotapplicable

To boost his challenge to the finding that AAA was a mental retardate, Butiong cites
[37]
People v. Cartuano, a case where the Court ruled that a diagnosis of mental retardation
required a thorough evaluation of the history of the victim, and held that a physical and
laboratory examination by a clinician was necessary. He insists that the findings of the
psychologist and the physicians who had examined AAA fell short of the requirements set in
Peoplev.Cartuano,consideringthatpsychologistdeGuzmandidnottrytolocatethebiological
parents of AAA for the purpose of ascertaining her personal history, and did not base her
findingsonreliabledata.

ButiongsrelianceonPeoplev.Cartuanodoesnotadvancehiscause.

People v. Cartuano applies only to cases where there is a dearth of medical records to
sustain a finding of mental retardation. Indeed, the Court has clarified so in People v. Delos
[38]
Santos, declaringthattherecordsinPeoplev.Cartuanowerewantinginclinical,laboratory,
and psychometric support to sustain a finding that the victim had been suffering from mental
retardation. It is noted that in People v. Delos Santos, the Court upheld the finding that the
victimhadbeenmentallyretardedbyanexaminingpsychiatristwhohadbeenabletoidentify
thetestsadministeredtothevictimandtosufficientlyexplaintheresultsoftheteststothetrial
[39]
court.

In direct contrast to People v. Cartuano, this case did not lack clinical findings on the
mentalityofthevictim.

[40]
Moreover, as clarified in People v. Dalandas, People v. Cartuano does not preclude
the presentation by the State of proof other than clinical evidence to establish the mental
retardationofthevictim.Forsure,thecourtsarenotentirelydependentontheresultsofclinical
[41]
examinationsinestablishingmentalretardation.InPeoplev.Almacin, forinstance,theCourt
tookintoconsiderationthefactthatthevictimwasilliterateandunschooledinconcludingthat
[42]
shewasmentallyincapableofassentingtoordissentingfromthesexualintercourse. Also,in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 12/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

[43]
Peoplev.Dumanon, theCourtconcurredinthetrialcourtsobservationandconclusionthat
the victim was a mental retardate based on her physical appearance and on her difficulty to
[44]
understandandanswerthequestionsduringhertestimony.

Here, the States witnesses sufficiently explained the psychological tests conducted to
establishAAAsmentalretardationwiththementalityofasixorsevenyearold.Thetrialjudge
himselfreachedaconclusiononAAAsmentalityfromhisclosepersonalobservationofherasa
witness in court, noting that she manifested a difficulty in responding to the questions,
[45]
especially those bearing on her being sexually abused. The trial judges observation to the
effectthatshehadnonotionofthewrongthathadbeendonetoherwasvalidatedbytheclinical
findings. As such, the totality of the evidence presented by the State established beyond
reasonabledoubtAAAsdeficientmentalcondition.



IV
Presumptionofinnocencewasovercome
bysufficientevidenceofguilt

Notable is that Butiong did not testify. He offered neither alibi nor denial despite the
strongchargeofrapebroughtagainsthim.Hisdefensewaspurposelylimitedtohissubmission,
throughDr.Dayan,thatAAAhadnotbeenestablishedtobeamentalretardate.Thereby,hedid
notrefutethathehadcarnalknowledgeofAAA.HavingearlierdemonstratedthefutilityofDr.
Dayans discounting of the States evidence of AAAs mental retardation, we can justifiably
considerthepresumptionofinnocenceinfavorofButiongasovercome.

Still,evenifhehadassertedalibianddenial,hisguiltfortherapeofAAAwouldnotbe
reversed in the face of AAAs unwavering testimony and of her very positive and firm
identificationofhimasthemanwhohadundressedherandsexuallygratifiedhimselfoffher.
[46]
Hecouldnolongerhidebehindtheprotectiveshieldofhispresumedinnocence,butshould
have come forward with credible and strong evidence of his lack of authorship of the crime.
Considering that the burden of the evidence had shifted to him but he did not discharge his
burdenatall,thereisnootheroutcomeexcepttoaffirmhisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 13/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

WHEREFORE,theCourtAFFIRMSthedecisionpromulgatedonMay18,2005inCA
GRCRHCNo.00862.

Theaccusedshallpaythecostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.



LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:


RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson



TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROMARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice




MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 14/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

[1]
Rollo,pp.317pennedbyAssociateJusticeFernandaLampasPeralta,withAssociateJusticeRubenT.Reyes(laterPresiding
JusticeandMemberoftheCourt,sinceretired)andAssociateJusticeJosefinaGuevaraSalongaconcurring.
[2]
Originalrecords,p.1.
[3]
PursuanttoRepublicActNo.9262(TheAntiViolenceAgainstWomenandTheirChildrenActof2004),anditsimplementing
rules,therealnamesofthevictims,aswellthenamesoftheirimmediatefamilyorhouseholdmembers,arewithheldhereinand,in
lieu thereof, fictitious initials are used to represent them, to protect their privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
September19,2006,502SCRA419.
[4]
TSNdatedAugust2,2001,pp.712.
[5]
Id.,pp.1516.
[6]
Originalrecords,p.291.
[7]
TSNdatedDecember11,2001,p.12.
[8]
ExhibitsD,E,F,F1andG,atoriginalrecords,pp.280284.
[9]
TSNdatedMay3,2001,pp.1316.
[10]
Originalrecords,p.272.
[11]
TSNdatedSeptember24,2002,pp.78.
[12]
Id.,p.12.
[13]
CARollo,p.99.
[14]
JudgeRaulDeLeon.
[15]
Rollo,pp.317.
[16]
G.R.No.L61126,January31,1985,134SCRA405.
[17]
G.R.No.11245758,March29,1996,255SCRA403.
[18]
Supra,note1,p.7,citingTSNofAugust2,2001,p.121.
[19]
Peoplev.Macabata,G.R.Nos.15049395,October23,2003,414SCRA260,268269Peoplev.Taperla, G.R. No. 142860,
January16,2003,395SCRA310,315Peoplev.Alicante,G.R.Nos.12702627,May31,2000,332SCRA440,464465.
[20]
Peoplev.Abulencia,G.R.No.138403,August22,2001,363SCRA496,508Peoplev.Lacaba,G.R.No.130591,November
17,1999,318SCRA301,314Peoplev.Magana,G.R.No.105673,July26,1996,259SCRA380,401.
[21]
Peoplev.Freta,G.R.No.13445152,March14,2001,354SCRA385,392Peoplev.Masalihit,G.R.No.124329,December
14,1998,300SCRA147,155Peoplev.Flores,Jr.,G.R.No.12882324,December27,2002,394SCRA325,333.
[22]
BlacksLawDictionary193(5thed.,1979).
[23]
Peoplev.Jalosjos,G.R.Nos.132875876,November16,2001,369SCRA179,198.
[24]
G.R.No.129433,March30,2000,329SCRA270.
[25]
Id.,pp.280282.
[26]
Peoplev.Gonzales,G.R.No.141599,June29,2004,433SCRA102,115.
[27]
Peoplev.Corpuz,G.R.No.168101,February13,2006,482SCRA435,448Peoplev.Ramirez,G.R.No.136848,November29,
2001,371SCRA143,149Peoplev.Apilo,G.R.No.10121314,October28,1996,263SCRA582,598.
[28]
75CJS,Rape,11,pp.473474.
[29]
IIIAquino,TheRevisedPenalCode,1988Edition,CentralLawbookSupply,Inc.,QuezonCity,pp.393394.
[30]
Peoplev.Manlapaz,G.R.No.L41819,February28,1979,88SCRA704,713.
[31]
Peoplev.Magabo,G.R.No.139471,January23,2001,350SCRA126,131132.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 15/16
5/26/2017 G.R.No.168932

[32]
Id.,(footnote10),citingPeoplev.Reyes,315SCRA563,577Peoplev.Andaya,G.R.No.126545,April21,1999,306SCRA
202Peoplev.Guerrero,242SCRA606andPeoplev.NguyenDinhNhan,200SCRA292.
[33]
G.R.No.140209,December27,2002,394SCRA433.
[34]
SeePeoplev.Miranda,G.R.No.176064,August7,2007,529SCRA399,wheretheCourt,citingPeoplev.Dalandas,affirmed
therapeconvictionbecausethevictim,13yearsinage,sufferedfromborderlinementaldeficiency(i.e.,hermentalitywasthatofa
fourtosixyearoldpersonwithanIQofonly40)hermentalretardation,theCourtheld,wasequivalenttoimbecilityintraditional
parlance.
[35]
Peoplev.Pagsanjan,G.R.139694,December27,2002,394SCRA414,424425Peoplev.Itdang,G.R.No.136393,October
18,2000,343SCRA624,633634Peoplev.Dizon,G.R.Nos.12604445,July2,1999,309SCRA669,677678Peoplev.Andaya,
G.R.No.126545,April21,1999,306SCRA202,214215Peoplev.Moreno,G.R.No.126921,August28,1998,294SCRA728,
739740Peoplev.Estares,G.R.No.121878,December5,1997,282SCRA524,533534.
[36]
G.R.No.L41819,February28,1979,88SCRA704.
[37]
Supra,note17.
[38]
G.R.No.141128,August30,2001,364SCRA142.SeealsoPeoplev.Cabingas,G.R.No.79679,March28,2000,329SCRA
21.
[39]
Id.
[40]
Supra,note33,atp.441.
[41]
G.R.No.113253,February19,1999,303SCRA399.
[42]
Id.,p.410.
[43]
G.R.No.123096,December18,2000,348SCRA461.
[44]
Id.,pp.471472.
[45]
CARollo,p.26.
[46]
SeePeoplev.Abella,G.R.No.177295,January6,2010,610SCRA19,3637.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm 16/16