Case Digest (G.R. No. 118823)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Carlito Rosare, G.R. No. 118823, November 19, 1996, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Carlito Rosare (alias "Lit"); the plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines.An information was filed on June 22, 1992, in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Legazpi City, charging Rosare with rape alleged to have occurred on May 11, 1992: that he, with lewd design and by means of force, had carnal knowledge of Rosalina Orubia against her will and without her consent. The complaint described Orubia as a 30‑year‑old mental retardate with the mental capacity of an eight or nine‑year‑old child; the investigating prosecutor’s resolution (I.S. No. 92‑0197 dated June 2, 1992) stating this condition was attached to the information.
At trial the complainant Rosalina Orubia testified in detail, describing how Rosare pulled her to a cogonal area, stripped her, placed himself atop her and inserted his penis into her vagina; she said she did not shout because Rosare had threatened to kill her. A medical examination three days later produced a medico‑legal certificate reporting hymenal lacerations at 6 and 7 o’clock. The prosecution also presented psychiatric testimony (Dr. Chona Belmonte) supporting that the victim had mild mental retardation (mental capacity of an eight‑ or nine‑year‑old).
On December 29, 1994, the trial court convicted Rosare of statutory rape under Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties, and awarded moral damages of P50,000.00 to the complainant. Rosare appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that the information alleged force rather than mental incapacity (so the element of the victim’s mental retardation was not properly alleged), and that the victim’s testimony contained inconsistencies and was not credible.
The Supreme Court took cognizance of the case (the appeal r...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the accused deprived of constitutionally adequate notice because the information alleged carnal knowledge by force but did not expressly aver the victim’s mental retardation?
- Did the prosecution prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the victim’s testimony, medical findings, and the defense of alibi?
- Was the conviction for statutory rape under Article 335(3) proper, or should conviction be affirmed under...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)