Title
People vs. Atento
Case
G.R. No. 84728
Decision Date
Apr 26, 1991
A mentally retarded 16-year-old girl was raped by a 39-year-old man; her incapacity to consent rendered the act rape, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 84728)

Facts of the Case

Glenda Aringo testified that she first went to Atento’s store to buy bread while her parents were at work. Atento was alone except for his three-year-old daughter. He allegedly coaxed her inside the house and raped her, causing physical injury to her hymen. He gave her five pesos afterward. Glenda claims that she was raped four more times subsequently. Despite her description of the act as “masarap” (pleasurable), she did not disclose the assaults earlier due to fear from Atento’s threats. Glenda later admitted to being pregnant from the assaults, and the child was born on December 27, 1987, bearing a striking resemblance to Atento. Atento denies the charges, claiming they were fabricated by a relative and that Glenda had loose morals.

Mental Condition of the Victim

Clinical psychologist Ascendo Belmonte evaluated Glenda and found her intellectual capacity equivalent to that of a child between nine and twelve years old. She demonstrated poor judgment, limited vocabulary, inability to distinguish important details, and generally poor mental functioning. However, she was assessed as capable of telling the truth despite her mental deficiency. Testimonies from family members corroborated Glenda’s limited mental development.

Legal Basis: Definition and Circumstances Constituting Rape

Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed when there is carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following:

  1. By force or intimidation;
  2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
  3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, regardless of force or reason.

Application of Article 335 to the Case

Though it was not clearly established that Atento used force or intimidation, the Court held him liable under paragraph 2 because Glenda was deprived of reason due to her mental retardation. Alternatively, since she had the mentality of a child under twelve years old, paragraph 3 would also apply, thus establishing the commission of rape. The Court cited precedents that extended this protection to women mentally incapable of giving consent, equating them with victims deprived of reason or unconscious.

Precedents and Legal Interpretations

The Court referred to prior decisions, such as People v. Atutubo, People v. Palma, and People v. Sunga, where rape was recognized despite lack of force where the victims were mentally incapacitated or retarded. The principle is that mental deficiency impairs the will to resist or consent, satisfying the element of rape under Article 335(2). Chief Justice Aquino’s commentary on the Revised Penal Code was also quoted to emphasize that deprivation of reason need not be total; mental abnormality or deficiency suffices.

Trial Court’s Findings and Reasoning

The trial court convicted Atento of rape under paragraph 3, stating that Glenda’s mental age precluded her from providing legal consent. The court found her testimony credible and consistent with a person of limited intelligence, incapable of fabrication or deceit. It recognized the innocence behind her naïve description of the acts and noted the threat and fear exerted over her, affecting her submission. The resemblance of the child to Atento further supported the prosecution’s ca

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.