People vs. Deniega (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODOLFO DENIEGA

G.R. No. 212201, June 28, 2017 

PERALTA, J.:

Facts: In an Amended Information, accused was charged with the crime of statutory rape, as follows: that the accused feloniously, have carnal knowledge with a minor (16 years old) AAA, whose mental age is only six (6) years old. Said carnal knowledge with the said AAA is detrimental to her normal growth and development and that accused knew fully well that the said AAA is suffering from mental disability and/or disorder.

In his defense, accused-appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution and also raised the defense of alibi. He contended that between the hours of 8 o'clock in the morning and 12 o'clock midnight of May 2, 2007, he busied himself by painting the house of a neighbor, then he went to GMA Cavite to have his electric fan repaired and, subsequently, had a drinking session with his friend at the latter's house. He also admitted that he and the victim were residing at the same place and, at the time of the incident, he has known the victim for one month.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of statutory rape under Article 266- A, paragraph 1 (d) of the RPC.

Ruling: Yes. It is a settled rule that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate, with a mental age below 12 years old, constitutes statutory rape. In People v. Quintas, the Supreme Court held that if a mentally-retarded or intellectually-disabled person whose mental age is less than 12 years is raped, the rape is considered committed under paragraph 1 (d) and not paragraph l(b), Article 266-A of the RPC.

In the present case, the Information alleged that the victim, at the time of the commission of the crime, was 16 years old but with a mental age of a 6-year-old child. The prosecution was able to establish these facts through AAA's Birth Certificate, Clinical Abstract prepared by a medical doctor who is a psychiatrist from the National Center for Mental Health, as well as the testimonies of the said doctor29 and the victim's mother, BBB.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A(l)(d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established.

Gist: This is an ordinary appeal filed assailing the Decision of the CA, which affirmed in toto the Decision of the RTC of San Pedro, finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime of statutory rape.