PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NORBERTO MATEO G.R. No. 170569, September 30, 2008
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Rape
FACTS:
FACTS:
In a Complaint dated November 2, 1995, AAA, assisted by her father,
BBB, charged Norberto MATEO
(appellant) with rape by means of force and intimidation. The Assistant City
Prosecutor certified that it was filed with the prior authority of the City
Prosecutor.
Upon arraignment, appellant, duly assisted by his counsel, pleaded
not guilty to the offense charged.
Upon medical examination, Dr. Reyes testified that AAA could have been laid on a rough surface as shown by the multiple linear abrasions found at her back and the anterum medial aspect of her thigh;that she had been sexually penetrated possibly with the use of force and violence; that he noticed that AAA was suffering from some form of mental retardation as she was not responding to his question like a 17-year old girl should, compelling him to refer her to a neuro-psychiatrist for examination; that based on the result forwarded to him, AAA had a mental age of 5 years and 8 months with an IQ of 38.
After trial, the RTC found MATEO guilty of raping a mental retardate. This was affirmed by the CA.
MATEO questioned the affirmation of the CA in the SC, arguing that 1) there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt – there was no physical struggle by the victim, and 2) the court a quo erred in finding that the victim AAA was a mental retardate.
ISSUE:
Is MATEO guilty of rape?
HELD:
Yes. Appellant's claim that the records do not show any sign or presence of struggle is irrelevant. Physical resistance is not an essential element of the felony, and need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety. It is enough that the malefactor intimidated the complainant into submission. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.Furthermore, not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone.
During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence tending to show that AAA was a mental retardate. It is settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape, which does not require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim for conviction.
In any event, the prosecution presented adequate evidence which showed that the appellant used force and intimidation in committing the crime of rape, and which the RTC relied upon in convicting appellant.
Upon medical examination, Dr. Reyes testified that AAA could have been laid on a rough surface as shown by the multiple linear abrasions found at her back and the anterum medial aspect of her thigh;that she had been sexually penetrated possibly with the use of force and violence; that he noticed that AAA was suffering from some form of mental retardation as she was not responding to his question like a 17-year old girl should, compelling him to refer her to a neuro-psychiatrist for examination; that based on the result forwarded to him, AAA had a mental age of 5 years and 8 months with an IQ of 38.
After trial, the RTC found MATEO guilty of raping a mental retardate. This was affirmed by the CA.
MATEO questioned the affirmation of the CA in the SC, arguing that 1) there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt – there was no physical struggle by the victim, and 2) the court a quo erred in finding that the victim AAA was a mental retardate.
ISSUE:
Is MATEO guilty of rape?
HELD:
Yes. Appellant's claim that the records do not show any sign or presence of struggle is irrelevant. Physical resistance is not an essential element of the felony, and need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety. It is enough that the malefactor intimidated the complainant into submission. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.Furthermore, not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone.
During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence tending to show that AAA was a mental retardate. It is settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape, which does not require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim for conviction.
In any event, the prosecution presented adequate evidence which showed that the appellant used force and intimidation in committing the crime of rape, and which the RTC relied upon in convicting appellant.