G.R. No. 107950. June 17, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE ANTONIO Y SIOBAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
On 5 January 1989, Adela Carbonell filed with the 11th Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC) of Villasis-Sto. Tomas, Pangasinan, a criminal complaint[1]
accusing Jose Antonio y Siobal of raping her daughter, Mercedita Carbonell, on
22 December 1988. The complaint was
supported by the sworn statements[2] of
Adela and Mercedita and the medical certificate[3]
issued by Dr. Hian Kiat Dy, the Rural Health Physician of Villasis.
The MCTC subsequently issued a warrant for the arrest of Antonio
which was forthwith served upon him. On
6 January 1989, the MCTC
directed Antonio to submit his counter-affidavits and those of his witnesses,[4]
which he did. After the preliminary
investigation, the MCTC found sufficient evidence to hold Antonio for trial and
ordered the transmittal of the records of the case to the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.[5]
Before the latter could take any action, the accused filed an application for
bail with Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Villasis, Pangasinan.[6]
At the hearing thereof, the parties agreed to adopt the evidence already
presented during the preliminary investigation.[7]
Finding no strong evidence against the accused, the RTC granted the application
for bail.[8]
On 2 June 1989, a criminal complaint, dated 6 April 1989, signed
by the victim with the assistance of her mother, and duly approved by the
Provincial Prosecutor, was filed with the said Regional Trial Court. Its accusatory portion reads as follows:
“That on or about the 22nd day of December, 1988, in the
afternoon, at Zone V, Poblacion, municipality of Villasis, province of
Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused by means of violence and intimidation, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the
undersigned, who is suffering from mental illness or deficiency, against the
latter’s will and consent to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code.”[9]
Issues having been joined by the accused’s plea of not guilty at
his arraignment,[10]
trial on the merits was had.
The witnesses presented by the prosecution were Mercedita B.
Carbonell; Adela Carbonell; Macario Barinque, a psychologist at the National
Center for Mental Health (NCMH); Dr. Dino Peña, resident physician at the NCMH;
Dr. Hian Kiat Dy, Rural Health Physician of Villasis, Pangasinan; and Pfc.
Ruben Pituc of the Integrated National Police of Villasis, Pangasinan.
The defense presented the accused; his wife, Emma Ramat Antonio;
Pfc. Jose Abrenica; and Jose Rauro.
By its evidence, the prosecution established the following facts:
Accused Jose Antonio lives in a two-storey house located along
the national highway in Zone V, Villasis, Pangasinan. He and his family occupy a room on the ground floor which serves
as their living quarters, while just outside the room is a vulcanizing shop
which he manages. On the other hand,
Mercedita, who suffers from epilepsy, and her mother, Adela, live in a house
located just across the accused’s house, also along the national highway.
In the afternoon of 22 December 1988, between 12 noon and 1:00
p.m., Mercedita, who was then twenty-four years old, went to the house of the
accused to get some comics which the latter had borrowed the day before. No one was at home then, except the accused
who let Mercedita inside a room. While
inside, he closed the windows and the door, then forcibly seized
Mercedita. He held her tightly, touched
her breast, and inserted his finger into her vagina. Jose forced Mercedita to stoop down, her head touching the
ground, removed her underwear, lowered his pants and brief, and copulated with
her while in that position.[11] Not
contented, he made her lie down on the cement floor and performed the sexual
act again.[12]
All this time, Jose had a bolo within reach.[13]
Thereafter, he allowed her to go home, but not without a threat that he would
kill her if she reports the incident to her mother.[14]
At about 3:00 p.m. that same day, Adela found her daughter in her
room crying. Mercedita complained of
stomach pains and began to have seizures. Adela noticed that Mercedita’s skirt was stained with blood. Thinking that she might just be having her
monthly period, Adela fixed Mercedita up and let her sleep.[15]
When Mercedita’s brothers and sisters arrived home for the Christmas holiday,
she was in a depressed state and would often complain of stomach pains and have
epileptic seizures.
It was only on 3 January 1989 that Adela was able to convince
Mercedita to relate her problem. Mercedita said that she would die if she became pregnant. When Adela commented that she would not
become pregnant because she is single, Mercedita revealed to her mother the
incident which had transpired on 22 December 1988.[16]
The following day, Adela and Mercedita went to the police
authorities to report the incident. Pfc. Ruben Pituc, who received their complaint, advised them to have
Mercedita examined by a doctor. Thus,
they went to Dr. Hian Kiat C. Dy, Rural Health Physician of Villasis,
Pangasinan, who upon conducting a physical examination on Mercedita found the
following:
“Injuries:
1. Laceration healed
(old) at 5th and 7th o’clock, hymen.
2. No other significant physical findings.”[17]
Pfc. Pituc, on the other hand, went to the house of accused Jose
Antonio to invite him for questioning at the police station. When they reached the station, Mercedita and
her mother were already there waiting. Upon seeing the accused, Mercedita pointed to him and said in Ilocano, “niloko nac, niloko nac” (you fooled me).[18]
Meanwhile, the parents of the accused and another relative, Helen Ramat,
approached Adela and offered the sum of P4,000.00 as settlement, which the
latter refused.[19]
Through the testimony of Dr. Dino S.C. Peña, a resident physician
of the NCMH whose specialization is psychiatry and who had conducted a
neuro-psychiatric examination of Mercedita,[20] the
prosecution proved that Mercedita had sustained a head trauma when she was
eight months old, after which she developed meningitis. When she was seven years
old, she started to have frequent
episodes of generalized seizures which were diagnosed as epilepsy.[21]
Based on the clinical history,
observations, and examinations he conducted, Dr. Peña concluded that
“she was found suffering from an organic mental disorder.”[22]
Pertinent portions of his detailed report,[23]
dated 25 October 1989, on the mental and physical condition of Mercedita read
as follows:
“BRIEF BACKGROUND HISTORY:
Patient is the 5th among 7 siblings. She was born full term, a normal, spontaneous delivery in a
hospital assisted by a doctor. She was
breastfed until one year of age. Developmental milestones were within normal limits. At 8 months of age, patient accidentally
fell from her stroller. Though there
was no loss of consciousness, she developed high grade fever with convulsive
seizures that she had to be confined in a hospital for one week and diagnosed
to have meningitis. At the age of 7,
the patient began to have frequent episodes of generalized seizures accompanied
by behavioral oddities like disarranging furniture at home or throwing any
object away. She was brought to
physicians in Manila and Baguio and diagnosed to have an Organic Mental
Disorder secondary to Seizure Disorder, Generalized. Inspite of her illness, the patient was able to finish first year
high school. And ever since she was maintained
on Carbamazepine about two years ago, her seizure episodes have been
controlled.
Last December 22, 1989, the patient was allegedly raped. A case was filed in court and subsequently
an order by the Honorable Court dated September 14, 1989, received last October
9, 1989 for the patient to undergo neuropsychiatric evaluation.
MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION: (October 9, 1989)
On her first consultation, the patient was a dark-complexioned, overweight,
of small stature, young adult female, who was appropriately-dressed and did not
exhibit any bizarre nor violent behavior. She could speak in Ilocano or Tagalog. And generally her verbal responses were coherent and relevant. Affect was restricted.
Regarding the incident in question which happened last December 22,
1988, she narrated in her own words — ‘nirape ako ni Antonio Siobal, siniraan
niya ako sa loob ng bahay . . . kukunin ko sana ‘yung mga komiks.’ Added,
‘pinagsamantalahan niya ako . . . papatayin niya raw ako kung sasabihin ko
raw.’ She denied ever having any hallucination nor morbid, illogical and absurd
ideation.
She was oriented to the 3 spheres. Her memory was good as she could give the following about herself. She’s 25, born on August 5, 1964, 5th of 7
siblings, reached first year high school, her sibling’s and parent’s names and
that she’s on medication for epilepsy. She had a fair grasp of general information but with poor abstract thinking.
Her judgment was unimpaired, and she has insight in reference to
her seizure disorder.
PHYSICAL AND NEUROLOGICAL
EXAMINATION: (October 9,
1989)
Findings are within normal limits.
On her 2nd consultation last October 16, 1989, the patient
reiterated that she was raped by Antonio Siobal. She was oriented to the three spheres. Memory intact. Judgment
unimpaired. And had insight.
LATEST MENTAL STATUS
EXAMINATION: (October 23,
1989)
The patient was accompanied by her mother. Well-behaved and cooperative. Her verbal responses were coherent and
relevant. Affect was restricted.
Repeated her story that Antonio Siobal allegedly raped her,
‘niraped niya ako noong December 22, 1988 . . . sinabihan niya ako na huwag
magsusumbong kung hindi papatayin niya ako.’
She denied having any perceptual nor conceptual aberrances. Related that her last seizure episode was
mild and several weeks ago.
Oriented to the 3 spheres. Memory intact. Judgment
unimpaired. And she had insight in
reference to her seizure disorder.
PHYSICAL AND NEUROLOGICAL
EXAMINATION: (October 23,
1989)
Findings are within normal limits.
REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the clinical history, observations and examinations
conducted on the patient Mercedita Carbonell, she was found suffering from an
Organic Mental Disorder. At present she
does not show any sign of insanity or psychosis, hence she is deemed mentally
competent to withstand the rigors of court trial.
It is recommended that she continue taking her anti-convulsant
medication and regular monthly check-up at Pangasinan Provincial Hospital,
Dagupan under Dr. Milagros Casanova to prevent any exacerbation of her
illness.”
Per the testimony of Macario Barinque,
Psychologist II of the NCMH who conducted a psychological examination on
Mercedita, the latter, after undergoing various tests, was found to have a
Verbal Scale IQ of 57, Performance Scale IQ of 64, and a Full Scale IQ of
59. With the Verbal Scale IQ of 57,
“she falls under the category of Mentally Retarded patient.” The
Performance Scale IQ of 64 is equivalent
to “Mild Mental Retardation.” The highest IQ of a person is
150 and the lowest is 0. And with her
Full Scale IQ of 59, she falls under the category of “Mild Mentally
Retarded patient.”[24] He
further disclosed that Mercedita has the mental capacity of a seven-year-old
child. Thus:
“Q Now on the basis of the Weschler examination with the rate of 57, 64 and 59,
what is the mental capacity of the patient?
A The patient has a mental capacity of a mild mental retardation,
sir.
Q Since she has that
capacity of mild mental retardation,
if you measure the [mental] age of the patient, what would be her age?
A Seven (7) years old, sir.”[25]
Pertinent portions of Dr. Barinque’s Psychological Report[26] on Mercedita read as follows:
“TEST ADMINISTERED:
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-R
Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test
Draw a Person
Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test
Sach Sentence Completion Test
TEST RESULTS AND
EVALUATIONS:
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-R:
Verbal Scale IQ – – – – – – – 57
Performance Scale IQ – – – 64
Full Scale IQ – – – – – – – – – – 59
Current mental functioning
falls along the mild mental retardation level. Scattering and spottiness of the test scores suggest mental inefficiency
at the moment. Innate capacity is
higher than the present one.
Psychogram suggest
impairment on almost every area of her cognitive functions except only on those
which measure her deductive capacity, keenness in observing details and speed
of her [viso]-motor coordination which are poor.
Projective data bespeak
of a low grade and repressed
individual who is unable to identify with her own sex and peer group. She even misrecognizes the difference
between the roles of the sexes further indicating conflicts along the sphere. She is emotionally immature and egocentric
whose dependency trends and affectional needs are evident. Emotionally unstable, she sometimes lets
loose her aggressivity [sic] out of inadequacy in the control of her body
impulses. She places too little
emphasis on impersonal matter of fact relationship with her world for
sufficient control to be maintained. Non-committal attitudes are inferred.
Her high ambitions
override her drives and inner resources that she meets frustrations for which
she has a very low threshold. She
somehow tends to withdraw from reality as she clings to her unjustified
optimisms.
There is a sense of
depersonalization and feeling of decline. Flattening of affect is likewise noted. Planning ability is poor.
Ego functioning is weak.
In the SSCT [Sach
Sentence Completion Test], childish response is elicited when she said, ‘Kung
ako’y nagkaroon ng karanasang sexual ay magsusumbong ako sa nanay ko.’”[27]
The version of the defense is as follows:
Mercedita was not seen at the premises of the vulcanizing shop or
the house of the accused on 22 December 1988, although she used to frequent the
place to play with the three children of the Antonio’s. On 22 December 1988, the vulcanizing shop
was quite busy as there were many customers. Emma, Jose’s wife, never left the shop because she helped in collecting
the fees. The parents and brother of
Emma, who occupy the second storey of the house, were also home during this
time. Mercedita accused Jose because
she was insisting that she be introduced to one of Jose’s customers known only
as Ronnie.[28]
The defense adopted as its evidence the report of Dr. Peña[29]
to prove that the offended party is capable of good perception and offered the
offended party’s secondary student record[30] to
prove that she passed her first year in high school with a general average of
79%.
On 24 July 1992, the trial court promulgated its decision[31]
finding the accused guilty of the crime of rape and disposing as follows:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Jose Antonio y Siobal
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party, Mercedita B.
Carbonell, in the sum of P10,000.00
as moral damages and to pay the costs.”[32]
The judgment of conviction was not predicated on carnal knowledge
through force or intimidation. As ruled
by the trial court:
“There is nothing in the evidence of the prosecution that the
victim put up any resistance or struggle. Neither did she cry for any help before or during the alleged sexual
act, although she claims that the accused had a bolo beside him. Nor was she threatened by the accused before
the sexual intercourse. She was,
however, threatened after the intercourse. Furthermore, the prosecution’s evidence do not show that force or
intimidation was used by the accused before or during the sexual
intercourse.” [33]
Rather, the judgment was based on the
finding that the offended party is suffering from “organic mental
disorder,” and deprived of reason because she is “a moron or a person
with a mild retardation level . . . like a seven year old child.”[34]
Pertinent portions of the trial court’s disquisitions read as follows:
“The thrust, however, of the prosecution’s theory and evidence
is that Mercedita, who was over 24 years old when the sexual intercourse took
place, is suffering from mental illness or deficiency and, as such, the accused
took advantage of her mental condition to commit the acts complained of.
That the victim is afflicted with epilepsy is a fact established by
the prosecution’s evidence. Even the
accused himself admitted that Mercedita is suffering from epilepsy and has
witnessed her seizures. As shown in the
report of Dr. Peña (Exh. ‘A’) Mercedita has had, since the age of 7, frequent
episodes of generalized seizures. Even
the Court has witnessed Mercedita suffer epileptic seizure. During the trial of this case, specifically
on January 12, 1990, the Court saw Mercedita’s body and lower and upper
extremities shake and her eyeballs turn around. Then Mercedita lost consciousness. Mercedita was unconscious for more than an hour.
That Mercedita is suffering from organic mental disorder is
likewise established by the prosecution’s evidence. As shown in the psychological report (Exh. ‘B’), Mercedita, has a
verbal scale IQ of 57; performance IQ of 64 and full scale IQ of 59. As testified to by Dr. Peña in Court, a
person with an IQ of 55 to 70 is classified as a moron or a person with a mild
retardation level; that this person is classified as an immature individual but
his memory would not be impaired; that he could reach only up to Grade VI. (TSN, Jan. 11, 1990, p. 3). Furthermore, he stated that person with a
mild mental retardation level would be like a 7 year old child capable of
perceiving and making known her perception to others. (TSN, Jan. 10, 1990, p. 11).
While Dr. Peña’s credentials as an expert psychiatrist is not
impressive, not having undergone training abroad and not having graduated
[with] any master’s degree in psychiatry, we believe that the number of
patients he has examined from his specialization in psychiatry (he is now in
his 3rd year, out of a residency of 4 years) eminently qualifies him as an
expert witness.
By the same standard, we also believe that Mr. Barinque, a
psychologist of the National Mental Hospital is eminently qualified to testify
as an expert witness on his line of specialty — psychology and psychological
testing to measure the mental capacity of persons.
x x x
Even granting that Mercedita gave her consent to the sexual
intercourse, it appearing from the evidence that she did not struggle or put up
any resistance or did not cry for help or assistance before and during the
sexual act, by reason of her mental condition, she is incapable of giving
consent to the sexual act. As held by
the Supreme Court, she is in the same class as a woman deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious. (People vs.
Sunga, 137 SCRA, 130 [1985]).”[35]
The accused seasonably appealed to us his conviction and, in his
appeal brief,[36]
imputes to the trial court the commission of this lone error:
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED APPELLANT GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE
FOR THE PROSECUTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT.”[37]
The accused specifically argues that the “prosecution failed
to show that the victim was actually suffering from epileptic fit at the time
of the alleged rape, [and] the testimony of the victim herself would tend to
show that she was not insane.”[38] On
the contrary, “[i]ntelligent and responsive answers were elicited from the
victim during her testimony especially on how she was allegedly raped by
accused-appellant. Moreover, the
victim’s scholastic performance would seem to be that of an average
person.”[39]
The accused does not categorically deny that he had carnal
knowledge of Mercedita. Rather, he
anchors his defense on the trial court’s finding that the sexual intercourse
was not accompanied by force or intimidation, and on his contention that
Mercedita was not insane nor having an epileptic seizure at the time of the
alleged rape.
The issue then boils down to a determination of whether the
degree of Mercedita’s mental retardation deprives her of reason such that any
carnal knowledge of her may be considered rape under paragraph 2, Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code.
Intelligence, as defined by David Weschler,[40]
is the “aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully,
to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment. It is global because it characterizes the
individual’s behavior as a whole; it is an aggregate because it is composed of
elements or abilities which though not entirely independent, are qualitatively
differentiable.”[41] Most
intelligence tests are now based on the
assumption that full maturity of intelligence is reached at 15 years of
age. After that age, it was found that
there was little increase in native intelligence as distinguished from
knowledge.[42]
Intelligence has been classified as follows:
CLASSIFICATION I.Q. Range
Very Superior 128 and over
Superior
120 – 127
Bright Normal 111 – 119
Average 91 – 110
Dull Normal 80 – 90
Borderline 66 – 79
Defective 65 and below[43]
In the present case, according
to the testimony of Dr. Peña and Mr. Barinque, Mercedita Carbonell, at the age
of twenty-five years was found to have a verbal I.Q of 57, which falls under
the category of mentally retarded; performance I.Q. of 64, which is the
utilization of her eyes and hand coordination and is equivalent to that of a
mild mentally retarded individual; and full scale I.Q. of 59, which is again
indicative of mild mental retardation. Relative to the table above, the victim’s I.Q. of 57-64 falls under the
category of mentally defective.[44]
As observed by Dr. Peña and Mr. Barinque, Mercedita has poor
abstract thinking with a fair grasp of general information, although her
judgment is unimpaired, and she is capable of perceiving and making her
perception known. Mercedita is thus
considered a mild mentally retarded individual, with a mental age of a
7-year-old child.[45]
Because of her organic mental disorder, the most that she can achieve is up to the mental age of a 9 to
10-year-old child, which would still be way off the borderline level of
intelligence. This means that despite
her age, she thinks like a child or is “isip-bata.”
A big difference
between a mental retardate and an ordinary 6 or 7-year-old child would be in
the speed of learning. A mental
retardate would take about twice as long to learn anything as the ordinary
6-year-old child, although she may have quite a good memory
just like the victim in this case.[46]
Having the mentality of a 6 to 7-year-old child, Mercedita could
not have validly given her consent to or opposed the sexual act.
We do not agree with the accused’s contention that Mercedita can
be considered an average person because she finished first year high
school. Scholastic performance is not
necessarily indicative of the mental age of an individual. It is true that a person suffering from mild
mental retardation at the school age of 6 to 21 years would have difficulty
learning general high school subjects and would need special education particularly
at secondary school age levels.[47] But
they could still be considered educable, for as long as there is close
guidance. Moreover, schools have
different academic standards; it is not surprising then that Mercedita was able
to finish first year high school with merely passing grades.[48]
The measurement of the IQ, on the other
hand, is based on an established formula (obtained by multiplying the mental
age of the subject, ascertained by testing, by 100 and dividing the result by
the chronological age)[49] which is plotted and standardized.
Regarding the accused’s contention that the victim is an
epileptic and not insane, studies show that epilepsy is a symptom of some
underlying brain damage or disorder. Their occurrence together is usually not coincidental, but the result of
the underlying brain disorder.[50]
It has time and again been held that a person is guilty of rape
when he has sexual intercourse with a female who is mentally incapable of
validly giving consent to or opposing the carnal act. This rule has been reiterated by this Court in the following
cases: People vs. Race,[51]
which upheld convictions for the crime of rape; People vs. Gallano,[52]
where the 31-year-old victim had the mental level of a 7-year-old child; People
vs. Asturias,[53]
where the 17-year-old victim had a mental level lower than that of a 7-year-old child; People vs.
Sunga,[54]
where the 23-year-old victim had the mentality of an 8 to 9-year-old child; and
People vs. Palma,[55]
where the victim was a 14-year-old retardate with an intellectual capacity
described as “borderline mental deficiency.”
We have held that if the mental age of a woman above twelve years
is that of a child below twelve years, even if she voluntarily submitted to the
bestial desires of the accused, or even if the circumstances of force or
intimidation, or of the victim being deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious are absent, the accused would still be liable for rape under the
third paragraph of Article 335. The
rationale for this is that if sexual intercourse with a victim under twelve
years of age is rape, then it should follow that carnal knowledge of a woman
whose mental age is that of a child below twelve years would also constitute
rape.[56]
In any event, the complainant’s testimony also shows that the
accused resorted to force and intimidation. For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation
employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be
resisted, it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to
consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.[57]
Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and
judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and
fast rule. It is therefore enough that
it produces fear — fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial
demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment or even
thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident.[58]
In this case, Mercedita was forcibly taken by the accused. She was held tightly and was forced to stoop
so he could perform the sexual act. All
the time, a bolo was readily available in case she resisted. After which, Mercedita was told not to tell
anyone what had happened,
otherwise she would be killed.
Well-settled is the
rule that positive testimony is stronger than negative testimony. The lone testimony of the victim in the
crime of rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. This is
because from the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can
oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the
complainant’s testimony.[59]
The award of P10,000.00 as moral damages to indemnify the victim
must be increased to P40,000.00 considering the condition of the victim, who is a retardate, and pursuant to the
ruling in People vs. Arena[60] and
People vs. Race.[61]
WHEREFORE, except as above modified, the decision
of Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Villasis,
Pangasinan, in Criminal Case No.
V-0185, finding accused-appellant JOSE
ANTONIO y SIOBAL guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
[1]
Original Records (OR), 1.
[2]
Id., 3-4.
[3]
Id., 2.
[4]
Id., 13.
[5]
OR, 40-44.
[6]
Id., 46.
[7]
Id., 64.
[8]
Id., 66-70. Per Judge Cesar J.
Mindaro.
[9]
Id., 74.
[10]
Id., 94.
[11]
TSN, 5 January 1989, 2; OR, 9.
[12]
TSN, 12 January 1990, 21.
[13]
Id., 19.
[14]
Id., 13.
[15]
TSN, 6 June 1990, 4, 11.
[16]
Id., 5.
[17]
OR, 2.
[18]
TSN, 25 May 1990, 5.
[19]
TSN, 6 June 1990, 17.
[20]
TSN, 10 January 1990, 4-5.
[21]
Id., 5-6.
[22]
TSN, 10 January 1990, 8.
[23]
Exhibit “A”; Exhibit “1”; OR, 108-109.
[24]
TSN, 9 May 1990, 11-12.
[25] TSN,
16 May 1990, 24.
[26]
Exhibit “B”; Exhibit “4”; OR, 110-111.
[27]
OR, 110-111.
[28]
TSN, 27 June 1990, 2-9.
[29]
Exhibit “A,” which it marked as
Exhibit “1.”
[30]
Exhibit “2”; OR, 47.
[31]
OR, 208-231; Rollo, 19-42. Per
Judge Alfonso G. Abad.
[32]
Id., 231; Id., 42.
[33]
OR, 226.
[34]
Id., 227.
[35]
OR, 226-230.
[36]
Rollo, 66-78.
[37]
Id., 68.
[38]
Rollo, 75.
[39]
Id.
[40]
David Weschler designed the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, the test which
was given to the victim in this case to determine her mental capacity.
[41]
WALTER J. COVILLE, ET AL.,
ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY 209 (1960 Ed.).
[42]
LAWRENCE C. KOLB, NOYE’S MODERN CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY
305-306 (7th ed. 1968).
[43]
Weschler’s Classification of Intelligence, found in COVILLE, supra,
footnote no. 41 at 210.
[44]
TSN, 9 May 1990, 12.
[45]
TSN, 10 January 1990, 11; TSN,
16 May 1990, 24.
[46]
BRIAN H. KIRMAN, THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILD 138
(1972 ed.).
[47]
KOLB, supra, footnote no. 42 at 308.
[48]
OR, 47.
[49]
BENJAMIN F. MILLER & CLAIRE BRACKMAN KEANE, ENCYCLOPEDIA &
DICTIONARY OF MEDICINE & NURSING 489
(1972 ed.)
[50]
MICHAEL CRAFT, TREGOLD’S MENTAL RETARDATION 331 (12th ed.
1979).
[51]
212 SCRA 90 [1992].
[52]
108 SCRA 405 [1981].
[53]
134 SCRA 405 [1985].
[54]
137 SCRA 130 [1985].
[55]
144 SCRA 236 [1986].
[56]
People vs. Race, supra.
[57]
People vs. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 [1992].
[58]
People vs. Grefiel, 215 SCRA 596
[1992].
[59]
People vs. Tismo, 204 SCRA
535 [1991]; People vs. Matrimonio, supra.
[60]
198 SCRA 172 [1991].
[61]
Supra.