THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO DE JESUS Y QUIZON, ALIAS “ELIONG”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused, Rogelio de Jesus y Quizon appeals from the decision of the
Circuit Criminal Court, First Judicial District in its Criminal Case No.
CCC-1-80, Isabela (II-329) finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him, after
appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the
offended party Clara Mina y Simon in the amount of P10,000.00 plus
another P5,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

The facts are as follows:

“Clara Mina, an unmarried woman of 28, lived with her parents in barrio Amistad, Alicia, Isabela (p. 7, tsn., March 21, 1974).

Clara Mina, however, is feeble-minded. She is unable to comb her
hair, bathe herself and wash her clothes (pp. 21, 31, 32, tsn., March
21, 1974). Because of her mental condition, she just stayed in the
house, doing no household chores (p. 31, tsn., Id.).

The accused, Rogelio de Jesus, a 19-year old farmer, who lived in the
house of his sister some 15 meters away from the victim’s house, knew of
Clara’s mental infirmity, and has often seen her left alone in the
house (p. 20, tsn., March 21, 1974; pp. 38, 47, 49, tsn., April 25,
1974).

At about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of Jan. 3, 1974, Pastora Simon
went out to the field in order to plant palay, leaving her daughter
Clara Mina alone in the house. Her husband (Clara’s father), had gone
to a place called Soliven four days before, while the other members of
the household had also left for the field (pp. 17, 18, 19, tsn., March
21, 1974).

That afternoon, Clara Mina was seated on top of a trunk when Rogelio
de Jesus suddenly entered the house, carried her in his arms and laid
her on the floor (pp. 8, 13, tsn., March 21, 1974). Objecting to what
was being done to her, Clara gave an outcry ‘Madi! Madi!’ (which
translated means ‘I don’t like! I don’t like!’) Rogelio, ignoring her
cries, removed her panties as well as his own trousers. He lay on top
of her, inserted his penis into her vagina and performed the sexual act
(pp. 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, tsn., Id.).

Meanwhile, Pastora Simon, who had already walked some 150 meters away
from their house, when sensing it was about to rain, hurried back to the
house to get cellophane with which to shield her from the rain (p. 17,
tsn., March 21, 1974). Upon her return to the house, she found Rogelio
de Jesus naked lying on top of Clara Mina whose legs were spread apart
(p. 19, tsn., Id.). Seeing them in that position, she rushed to the
kitchen to get a club but Rogelio spotted her and ran away. (p. 20,
tsn., Id.).

The barrio captain, Glicerio Guzman, to whom Pastora Simon had
immediately reported the incident, looked for Rogelio but failed to
locate him (p. 20, tsn., March 21, 1974; pp. 10, 20, tsn., March 22,
1974).

Returning from the barrio captain’s house, Pastora Simon investigated
Clara, who revealed to her that she was carried away from the trunk
where she was seated, then forcibly laid on the floor to have sexual
intercourse with Rogelio (pp. 20, 21, tsn., March 21, 1974).

The next day – January 4, 1974 – Clara Mina, accompanied by her parents,
denounced Rogelio de Jesus to the police authorities (p. 20, tsn.,
March 22, 1974). Clara Mina was examined by Fernando Babaran, Municipal
Health Officer of Echague, Isabela at the Southern Isabela Emergency
Hospital, the municipal health officer of Alicia being then on leave (p.
6, tsn., March 22, 1974). The medical certificate, Exhibit “C”, issued
by Dr. Babaran, shows the following findings:

‘(1) hymenal lacerations at 3 o’clock 8 o’clock and 11 o’clock

(2) vagina admits one finger with ease. Two fingers with difficulty.

(3) fresh perineal abrasion.

(4) smear, not done due to lack of microscope.

(5) contusion – left temporal area. Lesions to heal within one week.’ (p. 3, Record).

According to Dr. Babaran, the abrasions were possibly inflicted the day
prior to the examination and that the contusion on the left temporal
area of the girl’s head could have been caused when her head was pushed
against a hard object (pp. 11, 12, tsn., March 22, 1974).

Subsequently, Rogelio de Jesus was surrendered by his brother-in-law, a
councilor, to the Alicia Police Department. He executed an affidavit,
Exhibit “D” subscribed before Alicia Municipal Judge Flor Egipto on
January 5, 1974, admitting that he has sexual intercourse once with
Clara Mina, but denying that he raped her (p. 7, record).”

The accused denied that he had forced the complainant to have sexual
intercourse with him and that he only inserted his forefinger inside the
complainant’s private parts. He testified that he admitted having
sexual intercourse once with complainant in his affidavit^[1] because of maltreatment employed upon him by the jail guards.

While the affidavit executed by the accused is not admissible in
evidence for lack of evidence showing that the accused during the
custodial investigation was apprised of his constitutional rights under
Art. IV, Sec. 20, of the New Constitution,^[2] still there is sufficient evidence on record that the accused had performed the sexual act, to wit:

1. The accused testified that he merely inserted his forefinger
into the complainant’s vagina to cure her of her mental malady. The
records, however show, from the testimony of both the prosecution and
the defense, that the accused laid on top of complainant. If
appellant’s purpose was merely to insert his forefinger into the
complainant’s vagina, then there is no necessity of lying on top of
complainant.

2. Complainant testified, contrary to the testimony of the accused,
that the latter brought out his penis and inserted it into her vagina
which pained her a lot.

3. The hymenal lacerations and the fresh perineal abrasions in
complainant’s vagina corroborated her testimony that the accused had
sexual intercourse with her.

The accused assailed the competence of the complainant as a witness on
the ground that being feeble-minded she is not a competent witness in
contemplation of the rules and therefore her testimony should have been
rejected by the lower court. That the complainant was feeble-minded and
had displayed difficulty in comprehending the questions propounded on
her is an undisputed fact. However, there is no showing that she could
not convey her ideas by words or signs. It appears in the records that
complainant gave sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions
propounded by the court and the counsels. The court is satisfied that
the complainant can perceive and transmit in her own way her own
perceptions to others. She is a competent witness.

Having sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded woman is rape. The
offense is described under paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, that is, the offender having carnal knowledge of a woman
deprived of reason. The Court, in the case of People vs. Daing,^[3] said:

“The offense committed by appellant is rape described under
paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, that is, the
offender having carnal knowledge of a woman deprived of reason. The
deprivation of reason contemplated by law does not need to be complete.
Mental abnormality or deficiency is enough. So it was held by the
Supreme Court of Spain that a man having carnal knowledge of a woman
whose mental faculties are not normally developed or who is suffering
from hemiplegia and mentally backward or who is an idiot commits the
crime of rape. x x x”

Being feeble-minded, complainant is incapable of thinking and reasoning
like any normal human being, and not being able to think and reason from
birth as aforesaid, and undoubtedly devoid or deficient in those
instincts and other mental faculties that characterize the average and
normal mortal, she really has no will that is free and voluntary of her
own; hers is a defective will, which is incapable of freely and
voluntarily giving such consent so necessary and essential in lifting
coitus from the place of criminality.^[4] In this connection, the Solicitor General properly stated:

“That complainant possesses such a low mental capacity, to the
extent of being incapable of giving consent, could be gleaned from the
fact, as testified to by her mother, that she is unable to do the simple
tasks of combing her hair and bathing herself. Thus, even granting it
to be true, as counsel has insinuated, that complainant had submitted to
the sexual act without resistance (p. 9, Appellant’s Brief) such cannot
be construed as consent on her part, so as to preclude it from being
rape. Incapable of giving consent, she could not thus consent in
intelligently.”^[5]

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Exh. “D”, p. 7, Original Records.

^[2] Morales Jr. vs. Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. 61016, April 26, 1983.

^[3] 49 OG 2331.

^[4] People vs. Daing, supra.

^[5] p. 12, Appellee’s Brief.