People vs. Ventura

Carnal knowledge of a woman who is "deprived of reason" or mentally deficient constitutes rape under Article 266-A(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, and a variance between the Information's designation of the victim as "demented" under paragraph 1(d) and the actual proof of mental deficiency under paragraph 1(b) does not invalidate the conviction where the facts alleged are sufficient to inform the accused of the charge and no objection was raised.

Ernesto Ventura, Sr. operated a bakery with his children in Parañaque City. The victim, AAA, was a 17-year-old unschooled woman with mental disability who lived in the same barangay. In the early morning hours of March 24, 2005, BBB, the victim's aunt, passed by the bakery and witnessed Ventura, naked from the waist down, positioned on top of AAA on a bench in front of the establishment. AAA later revealed that Ventura had been sexually abusing her repeatedly, impregnating her, and threatening her with a knife to prevent disclosure.

• The Incident: At approximately 2:00 a.m. on March 24, 2005, BBB, while passing by the bakery of Ventura's son, observed Ventura naked from the waist down positioned on top of AAA on a bench in front of the bakery. Upon being noticed, Ventura immediately stood up, dressed, and entered his house. BBB discovered that the woman was her niece AAA, then 17 years old, unschooled, and suffering from mental disability.
• Victim's Revelation: BBB brought AAA home and confronted her. AAA confessed that Ventura had impregnated her and admitted to repeated sexual abuse. She disclosed that Ventura would give her clothes and money after each assault and threaten her with a knife to prevent her from revealing the incidents.
• Medical Evidence: The Medico Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory examined AAA and determined she was mentally deficient, pregnant, and that there was definite evidence of sexual contact or abuse.
• Custody: Barangay Tanod Ronaldo Antiporda escorted CIDG members to Ventura's residence. Ventura and his wife voluntarily accompanied the officers to the barangay hall, where Ventura's wife approached AAA and asked for forgiveness.
• Defense: Ventura denied the charge and interposed the defense of alibi, claiming that on March 24, 2005, he did not leave his home as he was busy making bread at their bakery until 10:00 a.m. He admitted knowledge of AAA's mental defect.
• Trial Court Findings: The RTC noted that none of Ventura's twelve children or other family members testified in his defense or visited him in jail, indicating familial repudiation of his conduct.

• Variance in Designation: Ventura argued that the Information charged him under Article 266-A(1)(d) (rape of a demented person) whereas the evidence proved the victim was merely mentally deficient or "deprived of reason" under paragraph 1(b), constituting a fatal variance that should exonerate him.
• Alibi and Denial: He maintained that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the crime on March 24, 2005, as he was working at their bakery making bread and only left the house at 10:00 a.m.
• Insufficient Evidence: He contended that no consummated rape occurred on March 24, 2005, pointing to the testimony of BBB and the medico legal officer, and the absence of hymenal lacerations on AAA.
• Credibility Issues: He questioned AAA's credibility, citing her failure to recall the exact date of the first rape and the number of times she was assaulted prior to March 24, 2005.

• Nature of the Charge: The People argued that the erroneous reference to paragraph 1(d) in the Information was not fatal since Ventura failed to raise this as an objection, and the facts alleged were sufficient to inform him of the nature of the charge.
• Proof of Mental Deficiency: The prosecution maintained that mental retardation was sufficiently established through the testimony of BBB, the medico legal officer, and the trial court's observation, notwithstanding the defense's admission of this fact.
• Credibility of Testimony: The People asserted that AAA's testimony was straightforward, candid, and worthy of belief, and that her mental condition explained any inconsistencies regarding dates and frequency of assaults.
• Rejection of Alibi: The prosecution contended that Ventura's alibi failed because the rape occurred on a bench directly in front of his bakery, making his presence there entirely possible.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the guilt of Ventura for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Variance Between Information and Proof: Whether the conviction should be set aside due to the variance between the Information's allegation that the victim was "demented" under Article 266-A(1)(d) and the proof that she was "deprived of reason" under Article 266-A(1)(b).

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution established sexual congress between Ventura and AAA, and AAA's mental retardation. The trial court's assessment of credibility was accorded great respect, particularly where AAA's testimony was found straightforward and candid despite her difficulty in testifying. The defense of denial and alibi was unavailing; even assuming Ventura was working at the bakery, the rape occurred on a bench directly in front of the establishment, rendering his presence there possible.
• Variance Between Information and Proof: The variance did not invalidate the conviction. Under paragraph 1(d), "demented" refers to a person with dementia characterized by deteriorated mentality and marked decline from former intellectual level, while paragraph 1(b) "deprived of reason" includes those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation. Since AAA was mentally deficient, she properly fell under paragraph 1(b). The erroneous reference to paragraph 1(d) was not fatal because Ventura failed to raise this objection, and the particular facts stated in the Information were sufficient to inform him of the nature of the charge against him.
• Medical Evidence: The absence of hymenal lacerations did not negate the fact of rape, as carnal knowledge does not require vaginal penetration or hymen rupture. AAA's failure to recall exact dates and frequency of prior assaults did not militate against her credibility, as rape victims, particularly those with mental disabilities, cannot be expected to retain accurate accounts of their violation.
• Penalty: Taking into account the special qualifying circumstance of Ventura's knowledge of AAA's mental deficiency, which was properly alleged and proven, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed pursuant to Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9346.

• Distinction Between "Demented" and "Deprived of Reason": Under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, "demented" (paragraph d) refers to a person with dementia—a condition of deteriorated mentality characterized by marked decline from the individual's former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. In contrast, "deprived of reason" (paragraph b) encompasses those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation. The Court applied this distinction to classify the victim properly under paragraph 1(b).
• Proof of Mental Retardation: Mental retardation may be proven by evidence other than medical or clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and the observation by the trial court. The Court relied on testimonial evidence from the victim's aunt and the medico legal officer, as well as the trial court's own observation of the victim's demeanor.
• Variance in Information: A variance between the specific statutory paragraph cited in the Information and the actual evidence presented at trial is not fatal to the prosecution where (1) the accused fails to object to the variance, and (2) the facts alleged in the Information are sufficient to inform the accused of the nature of the charge against him.
• Essential Elements of Rape: The exact date of commission is not an essential element of rape; the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. Similarly, the absence of hymenal lacerations or a freshly broken hymen does not negate the fact of rape, as carnal knowledge does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured.

• "Under paragraph 1(d), the term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual's former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, under paragraph 1(b), the phrase deprived of reason has been interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation." — Distinguishing the statutory categories of mental incapacity under Article 266-A(1).
• "Mental retardation can be proven by evidence other than medical/clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and even the observation by the trial court." — Establishing the permissible modes of proving mental deficiency in rape prosecutions.
• "The absence of hymenal lacerations on AAA's vagina upon medical examination does not negate the fact of rape. A freshly broken hymen is not also an essential element of rape. In the context it is used in the RPC, carnal knowledge does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured." — Clarifying the physical proof required for rape convictions.
• "The Court had repeatedly held that the exact date when the victim was sexually abused is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman." — Affirming that temporal specificity is not required for rape convictions.

• People v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 715 — Cited for the distinction between "demented" and "deprived of reason" and for the rule that mental retardation can be proven by testimonial evidence.
• People v. Caoile, G.R. No. 203041, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 638 — Cited for the interpretation of "deprived of reason" under Article 266-A(1)(b).
• People v. Dela Paz, 569 Phil. 684 (2008) — Cited for the principle that the trial judge's assessment of credibility is accorded great respect on appeal.
• People v. Dimanawa, G.R. No. 184600, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 770 — Cited for the rule that carnal knowledge does not require hymenal rupture.
• People v. Lor, 413 Phil. 725 (2001) — Cited for the principle that rape victims are not expected to recall exact dates and numbers of violations.

• Article 266-A, paragraphs 1(b) and 1(d), Revised Penal Code — Defines rape committed when the offended party is deprived of reason or unconscious (1b), or when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented (1d). The Court applied paragraph 1(b) despite the Information citing paragraph 1(d).
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 9346 — Mandates the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of the death penalty for qualified rape when the law violated uses the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr.