G.R. No. 84728 - People vs. Atento

The complainant, Glenda Aringo, was a sixteen-year-old girl at the time of the alleged offense.
The accused-appellant, Cesar Atento, was a 39-year-old storekeeper living in Barangay 18, Minoro, Cabagnan, Legazpi City, with a wife and eight children.
Glenda claimed that Atento raped her five separate times, the first incident occurring sometime in April 1986.

Glenda went to Atento’s store to buy bread, finding him alone except for his three-year-old daughter.
Atento induced Glenda to come inside the house and then subsequently took her downstairs, where he succeeded in deflowering her. She reported that her maidenhead ached and bled after the incident.
Atento gave Glenda P5.00 afterward.
Glenda recounted four other incidents involving Atento raping her, noting that on these latter occasions (presumably after her hymen had healed), she felt tickled by his manhood and described the sexual act as "masarap" (pleasurable).

Glenda never told anyone initially due to threats on her life by Atento.
Five months later, Glenda admitted she was pregnant and identified Atento as the father.
The child was born on December 27, 1987, and named Hubert Buendia Aringo.
Psychological evaluation by clinical psychologist Ascendo Belmonte found Glenda to be a mental retardate, possessing the intellectual capacity of a child between 9 and 12 years old with limited vocabulary, poor judgment, unsound thinking, deficient capacity for concept abstraction, but able to tell the truth.
Testimony from her mother and a relative corroborated her mental retardation and childlike behavior.

Atento denied the charges, claiming harassment by a relative wanting to oust him from his land.
He accused Glenda of being of loose morals and alleged that he had witnessed her in sexual congress with another man and that she offered herself to his thirteen-year-old son for a fee.

The trial court convicted Atento of rape based on the evidence and the victim’s mental condition.
The court took note of the resemblance between Atento and the child born to Glenda.
The court found that whether under Article 335(2) or (3) of the Revised Penal Code, Atento was guilty of rape given the victim’s deprivation of reason or mental incapacity.

Whether Atento was guilty of rape despite the complainant describing the act of intercourse as "masarap."
Whether the victim’s mental retardation affected her capacity to consent and the legal characterization of the crime.
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that Atento committed five separate acts of rape.
Whether Atento’s defense and counterclaims affect the credibility of the complainant and the sufficiency of evidence.