PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO PALMA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Palma

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Pedro Palma, a criminal case for rape decided by the Supreme Court in September 1986. Palma, a sixty-four-year-old carpenter who kept a small store on the ground floor of his house in Lucena City, was accused of having carnal knowledge of Imelda Telada, a fourteen-year-old girl described as a mental retardate. The case matters because it fixes two rules every reviewee must carry: that copulation with a woman known to be mentally incapable of giving even an imperfect consent is rape, and that physical intimidation need not precede the act when the victim's age and mental deficiency make resistance meaningless. It is also a working lesson on the credibility of a feebleminded witness, on alibi and impotency as defenses, and on the civil indemnity that must accompany a conviction.

Procedural History

A complaint signed by Imelda's mother was first filed in the City Fiscal's Office of Lucena City, but after investigation the case was dismissed. The Minister of Justice reviewed the record and ordered its prosecution. A complaint dated March 1, 1982 was then filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, charging Palma with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution rested, the defense moved for acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient and inconclusive. The trial court denied the motion on August 15, 1983, holding that it had been filed prematurely, since the questions of inconsistency in the testimony and of Imelda's credibility should be resolved only after the defense had presented its evidence. On October 10, 1984, the trial court rendered judgment finding Palma guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. Palma appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors against the conviction.

Facts

About five o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, May 16, 1981, Imelda was sent by her mother, Luz, to Palma's store, some 150 meters from their home, to buy a peso worth of bread with a two-peso bill. Except for Palma, the store was empty. He stepped outside, handed her the bread and the one-peso change, and told her to come inside. She went in with Palma close behind. He promised her candy and two pesos, and led her into a room with two beds. There he undressed her and removed her panty. She could not object because he threatened to kill her. He told her to lie down, warned her not to tell her mother, mashed her breast, and placed his organ on hers in a push and pull movement. She felt pain and told him she did not like what he was doing. There was blood in her private part when he pulled out. Afterwards they dressed, and in the store Palma gave her the promised candy and two pesos, warning her again not to tell her mother or anybody, or he would kill her. She left, forgetting the bread she had bought.

Meanwhile Manuel Torres, twenty-four years old, was visiting his girlfriend in a nearby house. He saw Imelda enter the store, suspected she might steal something, and went to the back of Palma's house. Through the open back door he witnessed Palma raising Imelda's dress, touching her breast, kissing her, removing her panty, and touching her organ. Embarrassed, he returned to his seat and waited. After about fifteen minutes Imelda emerged, and Torres saw Palma kiss her again and give her two pesos. Torres confronted her, told her to report the matter to her mother, and warned her not to return to Palma's house. She ran home but did not tell her mother; she even went back to the store to retrieve the forgotten bread. Only the following afternoon, May 17, 1981, did she confide to her mother that she had been abused.

Imelda's father, Eutiquio, was working in Manila and could be anywhere in Luzon. When he came home, he and Luz agreed to have Imelda examined at the Quezon Memorial Hospital in Lucena City. On June 2, 1981, Doctor Lourdes Taguinod found a complete, old and healed hymenal laceration at the nine o'clock position, a vagina admitting two fingers without difficulty, no physical injury on the body, and a negative result for spermatozoa. She testified that the laceration could have been caused by the insertion of a blunt instrument or an erect penis. Doctor Sancho Anenias, a specialist in child psychiatry, testified that Imelda's growth and development was below the level of her chronological age and described her intellectual capacity as borderline mental deficiency, or borderline between normal and moron. For the defense, Palma claimed he was building a poultry house during those months and that his wife attended the store; he denied the rape. His wife Leoncia testified that they had had no sexual intercourse for more than five years and that Palma had become incapable of the sexual act since he turned sixty. Barangay captain Rafael Bassit testified that he saw Palma building the poultry house.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of the mentally deficient complaining witness.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving due credence to the testimony of the accused, notwithstanding his age and his claimed incapacity to perform the sexual act.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying the motion to acquit filed after the prosecution had adduced its evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as then in force, defines and punishes rape, and it is the provision under which Palma was charged and convicted:

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

The case turns on the second circumstance, deprivation of reason, which the Court reads to cover a woman mentally incapable of giving even an imperfect consent.

Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code, on the civil liability of the person guilty of rape, supplies the basis for the indemnity the trial court omitted:

Article 345. Civil liability of the person guilty of rape. The person guilty of rape shall be punished by reclusion temporal. The person guilty of rape shall also be ordered to indemnify the offended woman in the amount of twenty thousand pesos.

The Court invokes this provision, together with Articles 100, 104 and 107 of the same Code, to impose the indemnity of twenty thousand pesos.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the discrepancy between Imelda and her mother on the date she confided was immaterial; on the part of a mentally retarded child, lapse of memory is expected, and a discrepancy of one day as to when a relative was told does not negate the victim's credibility. A feebleminded complainant is a competent witness as long as she can convey her ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded by the court and counsel. Although Imelda at times jumped ahead of the questions, her answers were coherent enough for the trial court to perceive the ideas she wanted to convey. She was therefore competent and credible. The Court likewise found satisfactory Luz's explanation for the delay in reporting: she waited for her husband, who was working in Manila, and, considering the offense serious, chose to confront Palma in court rather than personally.

On the second issue, the Court held that alibi is a useless defense if the accused was positively identified by the victim, and that the distance between the store and the poultry house was too short to discount his presence at the scene, only the Lucena Elementary School separating the two places. Impotency as a defense in rape must be proven with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of potency. Palma expressed willingness to be examined but no examination was conducted, and his wife's testimony that they had not had intercourse for five years, coming from the person closest to him, cannot be given weight. Neither that testimony nor his age proves inability to perform the sexual act with a budding young woman like Imelda.

On the third issue, the Court noted that although Palma assigned the denial of his motion to acquit as error, he did not discuss it in his brief. By filing the motion he in effect relied on the weakness of the prosecution rather than the strength of his defense, and the Court did not deem the issue worthy of further consideration.

On the merits, the Court held that the crime is rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, because copulation with a woman known to be mentally incapable of giving even an imperfect consent is rape, and physical intimidation need not precede sexual intercourse considering the age, mental abnormality and deficiency of the complainant. The trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua, but failed to impose civil liability; pursuant to Articles 100, 104, 107 and 345 of the Revised Penal Code, an indemnity of twenty thousand pesos should be imposed.

Doctrine

Copulation with a woman known to be mentally incapable of giving even an imperfect consent is rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and physical intimidation need not precede the sexual act when the victim's age, mental abnormality and deficiency make consent impossible. A feebleminded complainant is a competent and credible witness so long as she can convey her ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions of the court and counsel. Alibi is useless against positive identification by the victim, and impotency must be proven with certainty to overcome the presumption of potency. Every conviction for rape carries the civil indemnity of twenty thousand pesos under Article 345, which the courts must impose even if the trial court forgets it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, with the modification that Pedro Palma indemnify Imelda Telada in the amount of twenty thousand pesos, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize the line: copulation with a woman known to be mentally incapable of giving even an imperfect consent is rape, and intimidation need not precede the act. Examiners use this case on the credibility of a mentally deficient witness, on impotency and alibi as defenses, and on the mandatory civil indemnity that accompanies a rape conviction.