People v. Castillo

Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate whose mental age is below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, because the capacity to give rational consent is determined by mental age rather than chronological age; such victim is deemed incapable of giving consent similarly to a child under 12 years of age.

Accused-appellant Ruben Castillo and his wife Marilyn, godparents of the 14-year-old victim AAA who suffers from mental retardation, were charged with rape. Marilyn would regularly fetch AAA from her home on weekends. In December 2012, AAA's mother discovered AAA was pregnant. AAA identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator, describing sexual acts committed while Marilyn allegedly witnessed the abuse. Medical examination confirmed AAA's mental age was equivalent to that of a 5-to-6-year-old child, rendering her incapable of giving consent to sexual acts.

• The Charge: An Information dated September 16, 2013 charged accused-appellant Ruben Castillo y De Vera and his wife Marilyn Castillo y Brumela with rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. The Information alleged that in July 2012 in Quezon City, the accused conspired to have carnal knowledge of AAA, a 14-year-old mentally retarded minor, with accused-appellant inserting his penis into the victim's vagina against her will and without her consent. Marilyn was alleged to have facilitated the crime by bringing the victim to their house and being present during its commission.
• The Victim's Condition: AAA, the victim, was 14 years old at the time of the incident but suffered from mental retardation. Dr. Stella H. Guerrero-Manalo of the UP-PGH Child Protection Unit examined AAA on November 7, 2014 and determined that while AAA was chronologically 14, she possessed verbal skills equivalent to a 2½ to 3-year-old child and nonverbal skills equivalent to a 5 to 6-year-old child. Dr. Manalo concluded that AAA had a mental age of approximately five years and was incapable of giving consent to any sexual act due to her inability to judge situations and her vulnerability to exploitation.
• The Incident: Accused-appellant and Marilyn were AAA's godparents. Marilyn regularly fetched AAA on Fridays or Saturdays so AAA could sleep at their house. In December 2012, AAA's mother BBB noticed AAA's stomach enlarging and questioned her. AAA identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator, describing the acts using terms such as "sinasalbahe," "hinuhubaran niya ako," and "pinasok niya titi niya sa akin." AAA further stated that Marilyn witnessed the acts. On April 24, 2013, AAA gave birth to a baby boy.
• Defense Evidence: Accused-appellant and Marilyn interposed the defense of denial and alibi. They claimed that BBB harbored ill will against them because accused-appellant had stopped joining BBB and her husband in gambling activities, and because Marilyn had filed a barangay complaint against BBB's husband. Accused-appellant testified he was on Banawe Street, Quezon City at the time of the alleged incident, but presented no corroborating evidence.
• Lower Courts' Findings: The RTC found AAA's testimony credible and complete, noting the absence of any ill motive on her part to falsely accuse her godparents. It found the prosecution established AAA's mental retardation but acquitted Marilyn for lack of proof of conspiracy or overt participation. The CA affirmed the conviction but reclassified the crime under Article 266-A(1)(b) as rape of a person "deprived of reason."

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Accused-appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, arguing that no allegation of force or intimidation was proven.
• Credibility of the Victim: Petitioner argued that AAA's mental retardation weakened her credibility as a witness, implying that her testimony was unreliable due to her mental deficiency.

• Positive Identification: The People countered that AAA positively identified accused-appellant as her assailant and provided a credible account of the sexual assault, supported by the birth of her child.
• Sufficiency of Testimony: Respondent argued that the mental deficiency of the victim did not diminish the reliability of her testimony, as she was able to communicate her experience and identify her attacker, and that her testimony was sufficient to warrant conviction.

• Classification of the Crime: Whether carnal knowledge of a mental retardate with a mental age below 12 years constitutes statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) or rape of a person deprived of reason under Article 266-A(1)(b) of the RPC, as amended.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution established the elements of rape beyond reasonable doubt despite the victim's mental condition.
• Credibility: Whether the victim's mental retardation affects her credibility as a witness.

• Classification of the Crime: Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate whose mental age is below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the RPC, as amended, not rape of a person deprived of reason under paragraph 1(b). The Court abandoned its previous ruling in People v. Rodriguez (2016) which classified such acts under paragraph 1(b), and adopted the doctrine in People v. Quintos (2014) as reaffirmed in People v. Deniega (2017) and People v. Niebres (2017). The capacity to give rational consent is determined by mental age, not chronological age; thus, a mental retardate with a mental age below 12 is similarly situated to a child under 12 years of age and is deemed incapable of giving consent.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution satisfactorily established the elements of statutory rape: (1) the carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) the victim's mental age being below 12 years. AAA's positive identification of accused-appellant, corroborated by her pregnancy and childbirth, satisfied the quantum of proof required. The lone testimony of the victim, if clear and convincing, is sufficient to convict.
• Credibility: The victim's mental deficiency did not taint her credibility. The RTC, having observed her demeanor firsthand, found her testimony reliable. The Court noted that mentally challenged persons may be credible witnesses, and AAA was able to make known her perception and communicate her experience despite her condition.

• Mental Age Doctrine in Statutory Rape: In determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC, as amended, the interpretation should consider either the chronological age if the person is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established. A mental retardate with a mental age below 12 is deemed incapable of giving rational consent, placing the offense under statutory rape rather than rape of a person deprived of reason.
• Distinction Between "Deprived of Reason" and "Demented": "Deprived of reason" refers to mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation affecting reasoning and perception, while "demented" refers to dementia or mental deterioration involving loss of cognitive functions. Mental retardation is distinct from dementia.
• Credibility of Mentally Challenged Victims: Mental retardation does not per se impair the credibility of a rape victim; such persons may be credible witnesses provided they can make known their perception and communicate their experience.

• "Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. Both are considered incapable of giving rational consent because both are not yet considered to have reached the level of maturity that gives them the capability to make rational decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making is a function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her mental age."
• "Following these developments, it is clear that as regards rape of a mental retardate, the Court now holds that, following People v. Quintos, when the victim is a mental retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12 years old, the rape should be classified as statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the RPC, as amended."

• People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809 (2014) — Established the distinction between "deprived of reason," "demented," and "mental retardation," and introduced the principle that mental age determines capacity to consent; followed and applied.
• People v. Rodriguez, 781 Phil. 826 (2016) — Previously held that carnal knowledge of a mental retardate with mental age below 12 falls under paragraph 1(b); implicitly overturned in favor of the Quintos doctrine.
• People v. Deniega, 811 Phil. 712 (2017) and People v. Niebres, G.R. No. 230975, December 4, 2017 — Reaffirmed the Quintos doctrine that mental retardates with mental age below 12 are covered by statutory rape; followed.

• Article 266-A, paragraphs 1(b) and 1(d), Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) — Defines rape of a person deprived of reason or unconscious (1)(b) and statutory rape when the offended party is under 12 years of age or demented (1)(d). The Court interpreted "under twelve (12) years of age" to include mental age for intellectually disabled victims.
• Article 266-B, paragraph 10, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Provides for the qualifying circumstance of knowledge of the victim's mental disability, which would impose the death penalty (now reclusion perpetua due to the prohibition on death penalty), but held inapplicable because not alleged in the Information.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ.