PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENATO ENDINO Y GAPIDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Endino

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecute Renato Endino for the crime of rape. The information charged that he had carnal knowledge of Mary Ann Gaurino, a mentally retarded woman, by means of violence and intimidation. The accused admitted being alone with the complainant in a house on the afternoon in question but denied that anything happened. The case matters because it lets the Court state, in the clearest terms, that when the victim is a demented woman, force and intimidation need not be proven at all — the mental condition itself supplies the absence of consent.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned in the Regional Trial Court of Gubat, Sorsogon, Branch 54, and pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial, the case went to trial. The trial court found that the prosecution had established that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant, who was suffering from mental problems, and rendered its decision on 5 March 2004, pronouncing him guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the period of his detention credited in his favor and no pronouncement as to costs.

The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning three errors: that the trial court gravely erred in finding the private complainant to be a mental retardate; that it gravely erred in not finding that the elements of force and intimidation were lacking; and that it gravely erred in finding his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

At around three o'clock in the afternoon of 19 February 2000, in Barangay Buhang, Bulusan, Sorsogon, the complainant Mary Ann Gaurino and an eleven-year-old neighbor, Andrea Gaurino, were about to sell crabs. The accused, a neighbor and a relative of the complainant's father, held Mary Ann by the hand and sent Andrea home, saying that he and Mary Ann would be the ones to sell the crabs. He then brought Mary Ann to the house of Jaime Frontona, which was then in the care of Danilo Hagos.

Inside that house, the accused undressed the complainant and had sexual intercourse with her four times. She did nothing and did not resist because she was afraid; he had told her not to tell her mother or he would do something to her. When she later testified, she said he had threatened to kill her. After she dressed and was leaving, Danilo Hagos arrived. Her mother, Aida Gaurino, who had been looking for her, found her coming out of the house; the girl was crying, and at home she told her mother that the accused had raped her. Mother and daughter reported the matter to the police.

The Rural Health Physician who examined the complainant found fresh lacerations with sharp edges at the one, three, and nine o'clock positions and a damaged hymen. A psychometrician and guidance counsellor of the Bicol University, Norma Moll, examined the complainant and placed her mental age at between ten and twelve years, although she was then twenty years old. The accused's defense was denial: he claimed they had merely taken shelter from the rain, that they stayed only about five minutes, and that the case was filed by the complainant's parents out of anger over a land dispute with his brother.

Issues

• Whether or not there was sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the private complainant to be a mental retardate.
• Whether or not the absence of proof of force and intimidation prevents conviction for rape.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, defines when rape is committed. The Court states the rule this way:

Rape exists when there is sexual intercourse with a woman who is under twelve years old or who is demented.

This provision is decisive because it makes the demented condition of the victim, and not proof of force, the operative circumstance that removes consent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was sexual intercourse. The complainant's testimony stated plainly that the accused undressed her and performed the sexual act on her four times, and that she did nothing because she was afraid. The Court rejected the suggestion that her testimony spoke only of kissing and embracing, finding that nothing could be farther from the truth.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court had a basis to conclude that Mary Ann suffered from a mental problem. The psychometrician testified that the complainant had the mental age of a child of ten to twelve years, that she was unable to function as an adult of her age, and that her responses were those of a ten to twelve year old child. The accused never questioned that testimony nor the method by which the conclusion was reached; he merely argued that there was no evidence of her mental condition. The Court also recalled that findings of fact by the trial court are generally not disturbed on appeal.

On the third issue, the Court held that proof of force and intimidation was unnecessary. It cited its earlier ruling in People versus Gabawa that sexual intercourse with a mentally ill woman at any age, even without the use of force, is rape. It therefore declared it irrelevant whether or not force or intimidation was present for the accused to be convicted.

Doctrine

Three rules a Bar candidate should be able to write:

• Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, carnal knowledge of a woman who is demented is rape, and the demented condition of the victim substitutes for the absence of consent.
• In such a case, force and intimidation need not be alleged or proven; sexual intercourse with a mentally ill woman at any age, even without the use of force, is rape.
• The mental condition of the victim may be established by the testimony of a qualified psychometrician or psychologist, and the factual findings of the trial court on that condition are generally not disturbed on appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in full, and the accused stands convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Remember This

Memorize the line: sexual intercourse with a mentally ill woman at any age, even without the use of force, is rape. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that demented condition, not force, is the qualifying circumstance, and that the accused's failure to contest the psychometrician's testimony seals the finding of mental retardation.