Title
People vs. Magabo y Magarte
Case
G.R. No. 139471
Decision Date
Jan 23, 2001
A mentally disabled woman was raped; the court affirmed the conviction, finding her incapacity proven, but deleted exemplary damages due to lack of aggravating circumstances.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 139471)

Background and Charges

On July 2, 1998, Rolando Magabo was charged with the crime of Rape under an Information alleging that he unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of Noemi Dacanay, using force and intimidation. The charge stemmed from an incident where Magabo allegedly undressed Noemi and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse against her will, with her being incapable of giving consent due to her mental condition.

Court Proceedings and Evidence

Initially assigned to Branch 103 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, the case was reassigned to Branch 95 after Judge Jaime Salazar inhibited himself. Following the arraignment on October 1, 1998, where Magabo pleaded not guilty, trial proceedings commenced. The prosecution's evidence included testimony from Noemi, supported by a medical examination conducted by Dr. Ma. Christina Freyra, which revealed healed lacerations on Noemi’s hymen.

Defense Argument

In his defense, Magabo denied the rape, asserting that he was elsewhere at the time of the incident and suggesting a personal vendetta from a third party against him. He cast doubt on the mental retardation of Noemi as an essential element of the crime.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court found overwhelming evidence establishing that Noemi, indeed, was a mental retardate and that the rape occurred. It was noted that Noemi's inability to provide coherent testimony further underscored her mental condition, corroborated by Dr. Freyra's observation. The conviction was rendered on May 14, 1999, sentencing Magabo to Reclusion Perpetua and requiring him to pay damages to the victim.

Appeal and Legal Standards

On appeal, Magabo argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of rape related to the victim's mental state, particularly that her mental capacity was equivalent to that of a child under twelve. However, the court clarified that proof of mental retardation was sufficient for establishing rape, as a mentally retarded individual is incapable of giving consent regardless of other force or intimidation factors.

Affirmation of Conviction

The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings, maintaining that the evidence presented was credible. It noted the establishe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.