PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE MORENO y CASTOR, accused-appellant; G.R. No. 126921 August 28, 1998

TOPIC:  DOLO - Deliberate intent

GIST: Jose raped Jocelyn, 26 but with a mental age of 6 y/o. He was convicted but contested he was unaware of the complainant's mental retardedness and that it was consensual. Thus, there was no mens rea. 

SC ruled that being long-time neighbors, it was highly improbable that Jose is oblivious to Jocelyn's condition. Given her mental state, she couldn't have fabricated the charge. Thus, mens rea was present.

RATIONALE:

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. Jurisprudence instructs us that a crime cannot be committed if the mind of the one performing the act is innocent and without any criminal  intent; 

That is, bereft of mens rea, which is defined as "a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent."  

-----------------------------

FACTS:

1. Jose Moreno, with force and intimidation,  raped Jocelyn Bansagales, mental retardate, on 29 September 1993. When Jocelyn's mother learned about this, they immediately filed a report before the police. 

2. Dra. Cosidon, medico-legal officer, examined Jocelyn and found deep healed lacerations which could have been caused only by sexual intercourse.

3. Dra. Servando, resident Psychiatrist, diagnosed Jocelyn with permanent moderate mental retardation with and I.Q. range of 35-50 and mental age of 6 years old. Findings concurred by another psychiatrist.

4. Moreno disproved said allegations and said it was Jocelyn who came and seduced him. He denied ever having intercourse with her or attempt thereof. This was supported by Elena, who said she often saw them together making her believe they had an amorous relationship.

5. Given Jocelyn's IQ, it is highly improbable that she could have fabricated the said charge. Her complaint was corroborated by the medico-legal officer's findings.

6. RTC Pasig convicted Moreno of rape under Art. 355 (2) of the RPC and sentenced to reclusion perpetua on 17 June 1996.

7. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUEs:

1. The court a quo erred in convicting the accused on a ground other than that which has been alleged in the complaint. 

2. W/N the court a quo erred in convicting the accused under the second and third paragraphs of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code despite the failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The court a quo erred in failing to apply the mens rea doctrine. 

RULING:

1. NO. Appellant argues that the court erred in convicting him under Art. 355 (2), and (3). He was, however, convicted under Art. 355, par. 1 of the RPC which states that rape is committed by using force or intimidation, as charged in the information.

The force necessary in rape is relative, depending on the age, the size and the strength of the parties. Hence, it has been held that "for rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted, it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.

Since Jocelyn was "mentally retarded," it was clear that appellant committed the crime against the former's will, with minimal force, but force nonetheless.

2. NO. He is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Sec. 18, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, specifies all persons having organs of sense, can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perceptions to others, may be witnesses. 

As previously held, mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. As in the case of other witnesses, acceptance of one's testimony depends on its nature and credibility. 

Appellant contended that Jocelyn's, an imbecile, testimony should have been considered by the trial court with great caution and that such has not proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But Jocelyn was able to show that she understood the need to tell the truth during her testimony. The lower court aptly stated that "with the low I.Q. of Jocelyn, it is highly improbable that she could have concocted or fabricated her charge against the accused. Thus, he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

3. NO. Mens rea is present. Complainant and appellant had been neighbors for several years. In fact, appellant was well -known to complainant, such that  the latter called him "Kuya Joe." Appellant even testified that complainant sometimes washed his clothes and picked lice from his hair without receiving payment therefor. 

That complainant was a mental retardate was quite apparent and easily discernible. Under these circumstances, appellant could not have been unaware of the complainant's deficient mental condition so as to give consent to the sexual act. 

It is highly improbable that appellant, who had known complainant as a neighbor for a long time, was unaware of her mental deficiency. Therefore, he cannot claim  that his act of having carnal knowledge of complainant was without any, guilty purpose or criminal intent. 

SC ruling: the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the EXPLANATION that appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape under paragraph 1, Article 335 of the Revised  Penal Code; and with the MODIFICATION that the appellant is ORDERED to pay the victim civil indemnity and moral damages, in the sum of P50,000 each, or a total of P100,000. Costs against appellant. 

-----------------------------

ADDITIONAL INFO:

mens rea: "a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent.

Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having

carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances. 

1. By using force or intimidation; 

2. When the woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the

circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present. 

Evidence of overwhelming physical force is not necessary to sustain a conviction for the rape of an imbecile.