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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 84728)

Petitioner

People of the Philippines.

Respondent

Cesar Atento (accused-appellant).

Key Dates

First alleged rape: April 1986 (approximate).
Childbirth: December 27, 1987 (establishes a nine-month interval consistent with pregnancy from the first alleged rape).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statutory provision applied: Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (definition of rape and the circumstances in which it is committed).
Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as the controlling constitution for decisions rendered in or after 1990).

Facts of the Offense (Prosecution Version)

Glenda testified that the accused raped her on five separate occasions, the first occurring in April 1986 when she was about sixteen years old. She said she entered Atento’s store to buy bread; Atento, alone with his three-year-old daughter, invited her inside, took her downstairs, and deflowered her. She reported subsequent rapes on four other occasions. She stated she did not disclose the assaults earlier because the accused threatened her life. After five months she acknowledged her pregnancy and identified Atento as the father. The child was later born and named Hubert Buendia Aringo.

Accused’s Denial and Defense

Atento denied the accusations, asserting they were fabricated as part of a harassment campaign by a relative of the complainant who sought to evict him from the land where his house stood. He also alleged that Glenda was of loose morals, claiming he had observed her in sexual relations with other men and alleging an instance in which she purportedly offered sexual services to his thirteen-year-old son for payment.

Psychological and Expert Evidence on Mental Capacity

A clinical psychologist, Ascendo Belmonte, administered multiple intelligence and perceptual tests (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Revised Beta Exam, Standard Progressive Matrices, Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test). The expert opinion concluded that Glenda’s intellectual capacity corresponded to an age between nine and twelve years, placing her within the mentally defective level. The report stated deficiencies in fund of information, judgment, thinking and working capacity, vocabulary, and higher perceptual processes; she lacked capacity for abstraction and synthesis and was unable to distinguish essential from non-essential details. Notably, the expert concluded that Glenda was nevertheless capable of telling the truth.

Corroborative Family and Lay Testimony

Glenda’s mother, Benita Aringo, testified that Glenda only reached third grade and preferred playing with much younger children, even during pregnancy; after delivery she often left the infant’s care to her mother and played games instead of attending to the baby. A relative, Caridad Aringo, testified that Glenda had the mentality of a twelve-year-old and displayed childish interests (e.g., rubber bands, playing cards). These lay observations supported the expert’s assessment of diminished mental capacity and provided behavioral corroboration.

Significance of Victim’s Description of the Sexual Acts

Glenda described the sensation of intercourse as “masarap” (pleasurable) and “tickling.” The court recognized that such descriptions might, in isolation, undermine credibility in a typical adult victim. However, the trial court and the Supreme Court explained that due to Glenda’s mental retardation and childlike perception, these descriptions were consistent with her limited understanding and capacity to articulate pain or trauma. Her mental condition could account for a naively positive description of the physical sensation despite the criminality of the acts.

Physical and Circumstantial Corroboration: Pregnancy and Paternity

The timing of childbirth—December 27, 1987, roughly nine months after the first alleged rape in April 1986—was considered significant corroborative evidence of sexual intercourse with the accused. The trial judge also observed a notable resemblance between the accused and the child, a circumstance the court found supportive, though not conclusive, of paternity.

Legal Standard Under Article 335, Revised Penal Code

Article 335 defines rape as carnal knowledge of a woman under any of three circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age, even if neither force nor deprivation of reason is shown. The provision encompasses situations where the victim lacks the capacity to consent due to mental deficiency or unconsciousness, as well as statutory incapacity based on age.

Application of Article 335 to the Case

The record did not establish the use of force or intimidation beyond reasonable doubt. However, the evidence compellingly demonstrated that Glenda was “deprived of reason” within the meaning of Article 335(2), because her intellectual functioning was demonstrably below the level necessary to give legally valid consent. The court further held, in the alternative, that the accused was liable under Article 335(3) because Glenda’s mental functioning placed her in the class of a child under twelve years of age for purposes of consent—even though her chronological age exceeded twelve—thereby rendering any sexual intercourse rape per se.

Precedents and Doctrinal Support

The Court relied on prior jurisprudence establishing that Article 335(2) applies not only where a victim is rendered unconscious or is actively deprived of reason by the offender, but also where the victim is congenitally or otherwise mentally deficient so as to lack the capacity to consent. People v. Atutubo, People v. Palma, and People v. Sunga were cited to support the proposition that a woman known to be mentally incapable of giving even an imperfect consent may be raped absent proof of physical force or intimidation. The Court quoted doctrinal authority to the effect that absence of will (stemming from mental deficiency) suffices to constitute rape under Article 335(2), and that the deprivation of reason need not be total; mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient.

Trial Court’s Credibility Determination

The trial judge, Judge Gregorio A. Consult

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 84728)

Facts of the Case

The complainant is Glenda Aringo, who was sixteen years old at the time of the alleged offense.
The accused-appellant is Cesar Atento, a 39-year-old store-keeper, married with eight children, and a neighbor of the complainant.
Glenda alleged that Atento raped her five separate times, the first occurrence sometime in April 1986.
On the first occasion, Glenda says she went to Atento’s store in Barangay 18, Minoro, Cabagnan, in Legazpi City to buy bread; her parents were at work and Atento was alone except for his three-year-old daughter.
Glenda claims Atento cajoled her into coming inside his house, then took her downstairs where he succeeded in deflowering her; she says her maidenhead ached and bled, and afterwards he gave her P5.00.
Glenda describes four other occasions of rape; at a later occasion she felt “tickled by his manhood” and described the act of coitus as “masarap.”
Glenda did not tell anyone initially because Atento had threatened her life; after five months she became pregnant and revealed Atento as the father.
The child was delivered on December 27, 1987, and christened Hubert Buendia Aringo.
The trial judge observed a “remarkable resemblance” between Atento and the boy.
Atento denied the charges, claiming the allegations were harassment concocted by a relative who wanted to eject him from the land on which his house stood.
Atento asserted that Glenda was of “loose morals,” claiming he had seen her twice in sexual congress with a man and that she once offered her body to his thirteen-year-old son for P5.00.

Evidence Presented at Trial

Testimony of the complainant, Glenda Aringo, recounting five separate rapes and stating on one occasion that the sexual act was “masarap.”
Testimony of Benita Aringo (Glenda’s mother) that Glenda only reached third grade, did not want to continue studying, preferred to play with younger children even while pregnant, and frequently left the baby’s care to Benita to play instead of feeding the infant.
Testimony of Caridad Aringo (a relative) that Glenda had the mentality of a 12-year-old and was fond of rubber bands and playing cards.
Psychological evaluation by Ascendo Belmonte, a clinical psychologist at Don Susano Rodriguez Memorial Mental Hospital, who administered a series of intelligence tests and reported detailed findings (see Psychological Evaluation section).
Observations by the trial judge regarding resemblance between Atento and the baby and the complainant’s conduct.

Psychological Evaluation of the Complainant

Examiner: Ascendo Belmonte, clinical psychologist at Don Susano Rodriguez Memorial Mental Hospital.
Tests administered: Wechsler adult intelligence scale, revised beta exam, standard progressive matrices, and the Bender visual motor gestalt test.
Principal finding: Glenda B. Aringo “is INTER ALIA with an intellectual capacity between the ages of nine (9) and twelve (12) years.”
Additional findings quoted:
- Her intellectual functioning is within the mentally defective level.
- Her fund of information is inadequate.
- Her judgment is unsound.
- Her thinking and working capacity is poor.
- She is unable to distinguish essential from non-essential details.
- Her vocabulary is limited.
- Her capacity for higher perceptual processes is unsatisfactory.
- She lacks the capacity for abstracting and synthesizing concepts.
- Despite these limitations, Glenda was found capable of telling the truth.

Trial Court Findings and Judge’s Rationale

The trial court believed Glenda’s testimony and found the accused guilty of rape “as charged,” meaning the trial court found five rapes proven.
Judge Gregorio A. Consulta’s reasoning (quoted and paraphrased in the decision):
- Given Glenda’s low I.Q., it was impossible to believe she could have fabricated the charges; she lacked articulation and inventiveness and could not easily explain the meaning of “rape.”
- Even with coaching, her testimony would have fallen apart if fabricated, but it did not.
- Her childlike, artless description (including words like “tickling” and “masarap”) was consistent with the mentality of a 9–12-year-old and indicated truthfulness.
- When she submitted herself to the accused for subsequent intercourses, she was dominated more by fear and ignorance than by reason.
The trial court convicted Atento of rape and imposed reclusion perpetua, ordered acknowledgment and support of the child as his spurious child, and imposed civil indemnity and costs (the civil indemnity amount was modified on appeal; see Conviction and Modifications).

Issues Presented (as addressed by the Court)

Whether Atento committed rape upon Glenda Aringo.
Whether Glenda’s description of intercourse as “masarap” or pleasurable negates the rape charge.
Whether Glenda’s mental retardation (intellectual capacity between ages 9 and 12) renders her incapable of consenting, and under which paragraph(s) of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code the offense falls.
Whether the evidence proves five separate rapes or fewer.

Applicable Law (Article 335, Revised Penal Code)

Article 335 text as quoted in the decision:
- “Art. 335. When and how rape committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
  1. By using force or i
...continue reading