Case Digest (G.R. No. 133790)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Fernando Canaveral, G.R. No. 133790, August 01, 2002, promulgated July 12, 2004, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The appellant is Fernando Canaveral (accused); the respondent is the People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee); the victim is referred to as AAA.On August 7, 1995, an information was filed charging Canaveral with rape under Article 335, No. 3 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, alleging that on August 4, 1995 he, by force and intimidation and with abuse of superior strength, had sexual intercourse with AAA, a mental retardate, against her will. Canaveral pleaded not guilty and trial followed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanjay, Negros Oriental (Branch 43). On February 2, 1998, the RTC convicted Canaveral of rape and imposed reclusion perpetua and ordered civil indemnity of P50,000.
The prosecution proved that AAA was about 15 years old at the time, suffered from a mild mental retardation, was dependent on her mother for personal care and had only reached Grade 4 in school. The factual sequence was that AAA was sent at about 9:00 p.m. to buy mosquito repellent; she returned late and later her mother discovered AAA had no underwear. AAA identified the assailant as a man known as Joel, who was found to be the appellant and arrested. Medical examination by Dr. Weanchi Baldado Villegas disclosed fresh hymenal lacerations at 1, 5 and 7 o’clock (one still slightly bleeding) and spermatozoa in the vagina; the physician concluded AAA was no longer a virgin.
Psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Perpetuo S. Lozada found organic brain problems and developmental delay consistent with mild mental retardation — AAA was described as functioning like a five- to ten-year-old, malnourished, with impaired memory, judgment and insight though her ability to identify persons and relate to time was intact; Dr. Lozada opined she could not freely give full consent or full resistance. At trial AAA testified that appellant covered her mouth, choked her, undressed her and raped her; however, on cross-examination she at times had difficulty answering questions and admitted she had gone with appellant to the neighbor’s house.
Appellant testified as the sole defense witness, admitting he was with AAA from about 8:00 to 10:00 p.m., claimed they were sweethearts since 1994, and denied penile penetration, saying his contact did not go beyond caresses. The RTC foun...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in finding the fifteen-year-old victim to be a retardate despite her testimony appearing competent?
- Did the trial court err in treating the sexual act between appellant and the victim as rape despite appellant’s claim of mutual consent (the “sw...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)