PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. FLORIANO TAYABAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Tayaban

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Floriano Tayaban, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of a sixteen-year-old girl who suffered from moderate mental retardation. The case matters because it fixes the test for consent in rape: it is the victim's mental age, not her chronological age, that determines whether she can give rational consent. A woman above twelve whose mental age is that of a child below twelve is legally incapable of consenting, and intercourse with her is rape even if she acceded to the act.

Procedural History

Tayaban was arraigned before Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Ifugao and entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision in July 2010, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, imposing reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and fifty thousand pesos as moral damages. Tayaban appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its decision of June 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Tayaban then filed a notice of appeal, which the Court of Appeals gave due course and elevated to the Supreme Court. Both parties filed manifestations in lieu of supplemental briefs, and the Supreme Court resolved the appeal on the records.

Facts

AAA, the victim, had been assessed to have moderate mental retardation, an intellectual disability. Sometime in May 2008, she went to the house of her uncle, the accused Floriano Tayaban, in Ifugao. While she was there, Tayaban undressed her and removed his pants. He then inserted his penis into her vagina many times and bit her breast.

About three months later, Dr. Mae Codamon-Diaz physically examined AAA and found a healed laceration on her hymen, which she said could have occurred more than two weeks earlier. A Psychological Report issued by the Philippine Mental Health Association showed that AAA's overall level of intellectual functioning was comparable to that of a three-year-old child.

For the defense, Tayaban claimed that in the first week of May 2008 he brought a carabao to Baguio for the last novena of his brother-in-law's father, returned to Ifugao after six to seven days, then went to a place about an hour away to fix a house where he could stay and work, returning only around the end of May or the beginning of June 2008. The Regional Trial Court rejected this defense as a self-serving fabrication corroborated only by his wife. It found AAA's testimony credible, noting that even before she testified her demeanor was that of a two- to three-year-old child.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved that AAA was so intellectually disabled that her mental age was equivalent to that of a child under twelve years of age, making her incapable of giving rational consent.
• Whether or not the presentation of a psychologist was essential to establish AAA's intellectual disability.
• Whether or not AAA's testimony was credible, given that she required assistance from a social welfare employee when she testified.
• Whether or not the penalty and the award of damages were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. — Rape is Committed — 1) By a man who shall 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 Tayaban was charged and convicted, and its clause on a victim under twelve years of age is the clause the Court construes through mental age.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, provides that when the offender committed the crime knowing of the intellectual disability of the offended party, the death penalty shall be imposed. This is why the Court of Appeals calibrated the penalty, since the death penalty is prohibited.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution proved carnal knowledge, since AAA testified that Tayaban inserted his penis into her vagina repeatedly, and Dr. Diaz's testimony corroborated that there had been carnal knowledge. The Court also held that AAA's mental age was equivalent to that of someone under twelve years old. It quoted with approval the rule that one's capacity to give consent depends on mental age and not on chronological age, and that if a woman above twelve has the mental age of a child below twelve, the accused remains liable for rape even if the victim acceded to the acts.

On the second issue, the Court held that the presentation of a psychologist is not essential. AAA's intellectual disability was established by the testimony of her teacher and by the trial court's own observation of her conduct in court. Tayaban himself admitted that he was aware of her intellectual disability, and a Psychological Report showed her functioning comparable to a three-year-old child. The Court quoted the Court of Appeals with approval that mental abnormality may be established by evidence other than medical evidence or psychiatric evaluation, and may be established by the testimonies of witnesses.

On the third issue, the Court held that the factual findings of the trial court on credibility, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are given the highest respect and will generally not be re-examined. Both lower courts found AAA's testimony credible, clear, straightforward, and convincing, and Tayaban failed to present any cogent reason to reverse those findings.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that under Article 266-B the death penalty would be imposable because the offender knew of the victim's intellectual disability, but since the death penalty is prohibited, the Court of Appeals properly imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Following current jurisprudence, the Court increased the damages to one hundred thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Doctrine

First, in rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the capacity to give consent is determined by the victim's mental age, not her chronological age. A person with the mental age of a child below twelve is incapable of giving rational consent, so carnal knowledge of her is rape even if she acceded to the act.

Second, an intellectually disabled person is not automatically deprived of reason or demented, and may be a credible witness. Her disability may be established by evidence other than medical or psychiatric evaluation, such as the testimony of her teacher and the court's observation of her demeanor.

Third, when the offender commits rape knowing of the intellectual disability of the offended party, Article 266-B prescribes the death penalty, but because the death penalty is prohibited, the penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Floriano Tayaban for rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, modifying the award of damages to one hundred thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: it is the mental age, not the chronological age, that determines capacity to give consent, so intercourse with a woman whose mental age is below twelve is rape even if she agreed. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a person deprived of reason and one who is intellectually disabled, and to test whether a psychologist's testimony is required to prove mental retardation.