Case Digest (G.R. No. 168932)
Facts:
This is People of the Philippines v. Charlie Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011, First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the defendant-appellant is Charlie Butiong. The victim is identified in the record by initials (AAA) in accordance with Republic Act No. 9262.
On the evening of October 7, 1998, AAA, then 29 years old, was invited by her neighbor Butiong to his house; once inside he locked the door, removed both their shorts, led her to a sofa and had sexual intercourse with her. AAA reported pain and, upon returning home, told her older sister who brought her to the police and later to the NBI for examination. The medico-legal examiner found AAA’s hymen intact but “distensible” with an orifice wide enough to allow penetration; because of her disorientation she was referred to the NBI Psychiatric Section and underwent psychological testing at the National Mental Hospital. Test results (Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Bender Visual Motor Gestalt, Draw-a-Person) indicated a mild mental retardation with a mental age of about six to seven years, and she could not complete certain projective tests.
Butiong was arraigned under an information alleging that on or about October 7, 1998 he “did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant, a mental retardate, against her will and consent.” At trial the defense presented one expert psychologist, Dr. Natividad Dayan, who testified that the tests given the victim were unreliable to diagnose mental retardation and that individually administered intelligence tests and projective techniques should have been used.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258, Parañaque City, convicted Butiong of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered civil, moral and exemplary damages. The RTC based its verdict on AAA’s credible testimony, the clinical findings and the judge’s personal observation of the victim in court. On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision on May 18, 2005, giving deference to the RTC’s credibility assessments and finding the State’s psychiatric and psychological evidence sufficient to prove that AAA was mentally retarded and therefore incapable of giving legal consent.
Butiong sought review in the Supreme Court to challenge (1) the alleged failure to prove the exact date of the offense, (2) the sufficiency of the proof t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Must the prosecution prove the exact date of the alleged rape and does the absence of spermatozoa in the victim’s genitalia negate proof of rape?
- Was the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to establish that the offended party, AAA, was a mental retardate?
- Does carnal knowledge of a mental retardate fall within the class of rape enumerated in Article 266-A (i.e., “a woman deprived of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)