SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 253603. June 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SALVADOR

RABELAS y BUBAN, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 14 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253603 (People of the Philippines v. Salvador Rabelas
y Buban) . —
The Court NOTES:
1. the manifestation 1 (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated January
14, 2021 of counsel for appellant Salvador Rabelas y Buban (appellant),
adopting their brief filed before the Court of Appeals as appellant
supplemental brief since the same had adequately discussed the arguments
in the instant case;
2. the letter 2 dated January 21, 2021 of CTSSupt. Albert C. Manalo,
Officer-In-Charge, Inmate Document and Processing Division, Bureau of
Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement of appellant at the
said institution since October 1, 2018; and
3. the manifestation and motion 3 (in lieu of supplemental brief)
dated February 8, 2021 of the Office of the Solicitor General, dispensing with
the filing of supplemental brief as it had fully refuted and discussed all the
points of arguments in its main brief.
Appellant is guilty of
qualified statutory rape
Appellant assails the trial court's verdict of conviction against him for
Qualified Statutory Rape, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. He insists he
had a romantic relationship with AAA 4 and the latter willingly had sexual
congress with him as a consequence of their love for each other.
To begin with, we affirm the trial court's finding, as concurred in by the
Court of Appeals, that appellant had sexual intercourse with AAA, who is
suffering from mental retardation and is incapable of giving consent. This is
Statutory Rape. It requires the following elements: (1) the offended party is
under twelve (12) years of age; and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of
her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation, whether
the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness, or whether it was done
through fraud or grave abuse of authority. 5 It is also settled that sexual
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate, with a mental age
below twelve (12) years old, constitutes Statutory Rape. 6 Additionally,
Statutory Rape can be qualified by the circumstances under Article 266-B 7
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, among which is "[w]hen the
offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical
handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime."
First. Appellant admitted having had carnal knowledge of AAA during
their alleged romantic relationship over a span of three (3) years from 2006
to 2009. He even acknowledged that he is the father of AAA's son, which
fact was reflected in the boy's birth certificate. Verily, the element of sexual
intercourse was established by appellant's own admission and
acknowledgement of paternity of the child and the matching
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) test results. 8
Second. AAA was incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse.
Dr. Lalyn Irene Marzan (Dr. Marzan) confirmed that AAA had an Intelligence
Quotient (IQ) of 36 (Moderate Mental Retardation) and a mental age of 10.8
years old. Dr. Marzan drew this conclusion from a series of IQ tests and
interview questions specifically framed to determine AAA's ability to
recognize certain things and concepts, ability to make judgments, and
measure her perception of and reaction to certain disturbances. Dr. Marzan
also noted that the only detail AAA knew about herself is her name. AAA
could not give other details about herself, not even her own family name.
Also, AAA had poor abstract reasoning or orientation of time and place. 9 On
this score, People v. Quintos, 10 teaches:
The term, "deprived of reason," is associated with insanity or
madness. A person deprived of reason has mental abnormalities that
affect his or her reasoning and perception of reality and, therefore,
his or her capacity to resist, make decisions, and give consent.
The term, "demented," refers to a person who suffers from a
mental condition called dementia. Dementia refers to the
deterioration or loss of mental functions such as memory, learning,
speaking, and social condition, which, impairs one's independence in
everyday activities.
We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or
"intellectual disability," had been classified under "deprived of
reason." The terms, "deprived of reason" and "demented," however,
should be differentiated from the term, "mentally retarded" or
"intellectually disabled." An intellectually disabled person is not
necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even
ruled that they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her
maturity is not there despite the physical age. He or she is deficient
in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social,
and practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers.
Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the "socio-
cultural standards of personal independence and social
responsibility."
Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a
normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
Therefore, in determining whether a person is "twelve (12)
years of age" under Article 266-A(1)(d), the interpretation
should be in accordance with either the chronological age of
the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual
disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is
established.
In all the above circumstances, rape is ensured because
the victim lacks the awareness or presence of mind to resist a
sexual abuse. The unconscious, the manipulated, the reason-
deprived, the demented, and the young cannot be expected
to offer resistance to sexual abuse for the simple reason that
their mental statuses render them incapable of doing so.
They are incapable of rational consent. Thus, sexual
intercourse with them is rape. No evidence of force,
intimidation, or resistance is necessary. (Emphasis supplied)
So must it be.
Third. The circumstances show that appellant knew and took
advantage of AAA's mental retardation, thus, qualifying the Statutory Rape
he committed. Circumstantial evidence may be characterized as evidence
that proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be
established by inference. It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-à-vis direct
evidence as case law has consistently recognized that it may even surpass
the latter in weight and probative force. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient
for conviction if: (a) there is more than one (1) circumstance; (b) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of
all these circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. 11
These circumstances are as follows: 1) appellant himself admitted that
he knew AAA could not talk because she fell to the ground when she was a
year old; 12 2) appellant had lived with AAA and her family for over three (3)
years and would have surely observed AAA's state of mental retardation; 13
3) appellant knew that AAA was incapable of taking care of herself, even
remarking that she was always dirty; 14 and 4) he admitted that during their
cohabitation, AAA had mental issues and was seeing a doctor. 15 Surely,
from all these circumstances, the logical and certain inference is that
appellant had knowledge of AAA's mental retardation and took advantage of
her condition to have carnal knowledge of her.
Fourth. Appellant imputed ill motive on BBB for instigating the
complaint. He claimed that BBB was jealous because he chose AAA over her.
The Court finds this aspersion of ill-motive flimsy. It is highly implausible that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 BBB would go through the harrowing experience of filing rape charges, on
behalf of her daughter, against appellant for such relatively trivial reason. 16
Against the testimonial and scientific evidence against him, appellant
merely interposed denial and the "sweetheart theory." Denial is the weakest
of all defenses. It easily crumbles in the face of positive identification of the
accused as the perpetrator of the crime. 17 Also, appellant's "sweetheart
theory" is not legally feasible because AAA, to repeat, is incapable of giving
consent to sexual intercourse. People v. Acero 18 pointedly observed:
The appellant's contention does not hold water. A defense
based on the "sweetheart theory" in rape cases is no defense at all in
rape where the victim is a mental retardate. It is settled that sexual
intercourse with a mental retardate constitutes rape. An imbecile has
an intellectual function equivalent to that of an average seven-year-
old child. Cherry, an imbecile, cannot give legal consent to sexual
intercourse. x x x
Penalties and damages
The crime of rape is defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the
RPC, as amended, viz.:
Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is
committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age
or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
xxx xxx xxx
For purposes of imposing the death penalty in cases of qualified rape
involving mental retardation, Article 266-B of the RPC provides:
Article 266-B. Penalty. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx
10) When the offender knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at
the time of the commission of the crime.
xxx xxx xxx
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the prescribed penalty is death where
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the offender knew of the victim's mental disability. By virtue of Republic Act
No. 9346 19 (RA 9346), however, the death penalty is reduced to reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole. Section 3 of RA 9346 states:
SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua,
by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.
Additionally, appellant is liable for P100,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in
conformity with prevailing jurisprudence. 20 These amounts shall earn six
percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully
paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated
July 9, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11848 is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellant SALVADOR RABELAS y
BUBAN is found GUILTY of QUALIFIED STATUTORY RAPE and sentenced
to RECLUSION PERPETUA without eligibility for parole.
He is further ordered TO PAY AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All monetary awards are subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum from
finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. " (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per
Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021)

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Division Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MA. CONCOLACION GAMINDE-

CRUZADA
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 18-19.

2. Id. at 22.
3. Id. at 23-24.

4. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information
which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect
her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with
People v. Cabalquinto [533 Phil. 703 (2006)] and Amended Administrative
Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.

5. See People v. Fetalco , G.R. No. 241249, July 28, 2020.

6. People v. Deniega , 811 Phil. 712, 721 (2017).

7. Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding

article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

xxx xxx xxx

10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder
and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission
of the crime.

xxx xxx xxx

8. Rollo , p. 9.
9. Id. at 7.
10. 746 Phil. 809, 829-831 (2014).
11. See People v. Jaen , G.R. No. 241946, July 29, 2019.
12. CA rollo, p. 53.

13. Id. at 64.

14. Id.
15. Id. at 55.
16. See People v. Medina , 788 Phil. 115 (2016).
17. People v. Glino, 564 Phil. 396, 420 (2007).

18. 469 Phil. 686, 694-695 (2004).

19. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, approved
on June 24, 2006.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com