PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EFREN CASTILLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Castillo

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a rape case. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Efren Castillo for having carnal knowledge of a woman known to him to be mentally retarded, a crime defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the rule that mental retardation may be proven by evidence other than medical or clinical evidence, including the testimony of ordinary witnesses and the personal observation of the trial judge. Second, it reminds us that the deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete, since mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Gingoog City, Branch 43, tried the case and, in a decision dated 14 April 2004, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity. The records were first transmitted to the Supreme Court on appeal, but in view of the ruling in People versus Mateo, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated 7 November 2008, affirmed the conviction with modification, adding an award of 50,000 pesos as moral damages. The records were then forwarded to the Supreme Court for further review, and the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

AAA was 18 years old when the incidents happened. She was the eldest of four children. She began school at the age of eight and never finished Grade One, mainly because of epileptic seizures that began when she was nine and recurred at least once a month. She had difficulty understanding her lessons, could not write well, and had poor memory. Compared to her younger siblings, she had difficulty following instructions at home and in school.

Sometime in March 2000, AAA approached the appellant to collect his debt for rice cake he had bought from her mother. Instead of paying, the appellant cuddled her and led her to the house of a certain Atok in Barangay Agay-ayan, Gingoog City. Inside, he made her lie down, removed her short pants and panty, undressed himself, mounted her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain. He then told her to go home. Days later, while she was on her way to her aunt's house, the appellant approached her by a mango grove, walked with her, and led her to a nearby chapel. Outside the chapel he undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her in a standing position. AAA then told her mother what had happened.

AAA was examined at the Gingoog District Hospital. The doctor found a contusion on her right buttocks and healed hymenal lacerations at the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions, which could have been caused by sexual intercourse. A Guidance Psychologist who tested AAA concluded that she suffered from mild to moderate mental retardation with a mental age of 8 to 12 years old. The defense offered denial and alibi, but the appellant's own father categorically admitted in court that AAA is mentally retarded and feeble-minded.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution sufficiently proved that AAA is a mental retardate.
• Whether or not the appellant's guilt of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, provides:

Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed. 1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This is the provision under which the appellant was charged and convicted, and it supplies the elements the prosecution had to prove.

Section 50 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. - The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding - (a) x x x (b) x x x (c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.

This is the evidentiary basis for allowing ordinary witnesses, such as the victim's mother, to testify on the victim's mental condition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that mental retardation may be proven by evidence other than medical or clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and even the observation of the trial court. The mother of the offended party, though not a psychiatrist, is competent to testify if she knows the physical and mental condition of the party, how she was born, what she is suffering from, and what her attainments are. The Court also held that the personal observation of the trial judge suffices even in the absence of an expert opinion. Here, the mother's testimony, the psychologist's observations as an ordinary witness, the trial court's own observation of AAA's difficulty in answering simple questions, and the admission of the appellant's own father all established that AAA is a mental retardate. The Court stressed that the deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete, since mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient.

On the second issue, the Court held that carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape, and proof of force or intimidation is not necessary because a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What must be proven are the facts of sexual congress and the mental retardation of the victim. AAA narrated both incidents in a categorical and straightforward manner and positively identified the appellant. Her testimony was corroborated by the medical finding of healed hymenal lacerations, which the Court described as the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. The Court also found no ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, and rejected the appellant's denial and alibi.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, mental retardation may be proven by evidence other than medical or clinical evidence, including the testimony of ordinary witnesses and the observation of the trial court. Second, under Section 50 of Rule 130, an ordinary witness sufficiently acquainted with a person may give an opinion on that person's mental sanity, and may testify on impressions of emotion, behavior, condition or appearance. Third, the mother of the offended party, though not a psychiatrist, is competent to testify on the victim's mental condition if she knows it. Fourth, the personal observation of the trial judge suffices even without an expert opinion. Fifth, the deprivation of reason under Article 266-A need not be complete, since mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient. Sixth, carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is rape, and force or intimidation need not be proven because such a person cannot give consent.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for rape and upheld the penalties and damages awarded by the Court of Appeals.

Remember This

Memorize this line: mental retardation may be proven by evidence other than medical or clinical evidence, and the deprivation of reason need not be complete. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of proof of mental retardation and the competence of ordinary witnesses to testify on a person's mental condition.