Facts:

The case involves the appeal of Francisco Bermas y Asis (Bermas) against the Decision dated July 6, 2017, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06972, which upheld the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of EEE's Judgment dated May 16, 2014, finding him guilty of Rape. The Information filed against Bermas alleged that on January 10, 2008, in [DDD], Philippines, he, motivated by lewd design and using force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA, a mentally retarded individual, against her will. During the trial, the prosecution presented witnesses including AAA, her mother BBB, Rural Health Physician Dr. Virginia Barasona, and Barangay Captain CCC. Testimonies revealed that AAA had been mentally retarded since birth, exhibiting behaviors inconsistent with her age. On the night of the incident, AAA was allegedly coerced by Bermas to remove her clothing, after which he and another man, Garry Padilla, sexually assaulted her. The defense, represented solely by Bermas...

Facts:

1. Accusation and Charge
   Francisco Bermas y Asis (Bermas) was accused of raping AAA, a mentally retarded individual, on January 10, 2008. The Information stated that Bermas, through force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will.

2. Prosecution’s Case

   • AAA testified that Bermas and Garry Padilla removed her shorts and underwear, penetrated her vagina, and moved in a pumping motion.
   • BBB, AAA’s mother, testified that AAA had been mentally retarded since birth, exhibiting hardheadedness and inappropriate behavior.
   • Barangay Captain CCC testified that he saw AAA with Bermas at his pigpen on the night of the incident.
   • Dr. Barasona, a rural health physician, examined AAA two days after the incident and found evidence of penetration. She also noted AAA’s difficulty in understanding questions and referred her for psychiatric evaluation, suspecting Down Syndrome.

3. Defense’s Case
   Bermas denied the accusation, stating that he was at a birthday party and later went home. He claimed he was falsely implicated when Barangay Captain CCC saw him with AAA.

4. Trial Court Ruling
   The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Bermas of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The court relied on AAA’s testimony, the identification by Barangay Captain CCC, and the medical findings of Dr. Barasona.

5. Court of Appeal’s Ruling
   The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that AAA’s mental retardation negated the need to prove force or intimidation, as she was incapable of giving consent.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Burden of Proof in Rape Cases
   In rape cases, the prosecution must prove two elements beyond reasonable doubt:

   • The offender had carnal knowledge of the victim.
   • The act was accomplished through force, intimidation, or when the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.

2. Mental Retardation as a Defense
   The Court emphasized that mental retardation must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish that the victim was “deprived of reason” and thus incapable of giving consent.

3. Insufficient Evidence of Mental Retardation

   • The testimonies of BBB and Barangay Captain CCC were insufficient to conclusively prove AAA’s mental retardation.
   • Dr. Barasona’s findings were inconclusive, and no clinical or psychometric tests were conducted to confirm AAA’s mental retardation.
   • The Court cited People v. Dalandas, which held that testimonial evidence alone, without clinical support, is insufficient to prove mental retardation.

4. Consent to the Sexual Act
   AAA’s testimony revealed that she “consented” to the sexual act, as she stated she did not prevent it and even “liked” what Bermas did to her. Without clear evidence that AAA was mentally retarded, this consent cannot be vitiated.

5. Acquittal Based on Reasonable Doubt
   The prosecution failed to establish the second element of rape beyond reasonable doubt. Without sufficient proof of AAA’s mental retardation, Bermas cannot be convicted. The Court reiterated the constitutional presumption of innocence and acquitted Bermas.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision and acquitted Bermas due to the prosecution’s failure to prove AAA’s mental retardation beyond reasonable doubt.
###