G.R. No. 189822 People v.

Suansing September 2, 2013

People of the Philippines, Jojie Suansing,

FACTS:
Jojie Suansing was accused of raping AAA who was suffering from mental retardation.
Sometime before April 8, 2001, GGG, the sister of the accused, requested FFF, the friend of the
victim, to get from Suansings boarding house an electric fan and a transformer. FFF, her brother and
AAA went to the boarding house. After giving the requested items, Suansing ordered FFF and her
brother to leave AAA behind.
GGG, upon learning that AAA was still with the accused, requested FFF to fetch AAA. Upon
arriving at the boarding house, she noticed that the door was closed. She called out to AAA who opened
the door and came out fixing her short pants. FFF then asked AAA if anything happened. AAA
replied that after FFF and her brother left the boarding house, appellant pulled her inside the room,
removed her shoes and panty, told her to lie down on the floor, and inserted his penis into her vagina
without her consent. AAA requested FFF not to tell anyone that she was raped by appellant.
On August 3, 2001, EEE learned about the rape and confronted AAA. EEE then reported the
incident to police authorities. The genital examination of AAA on August 6, 2001 revealed old hymenal
lacerations. Her psychiatric evaluation also disclosed that she was suffering from mild retardation with the
mental age of a 9 to 12-year old child. Although with impaired adaptive skills, the RTC found AAA
qualified to testify.
Appellant denied raping AAA and claimed that the relatives of AAA filed the instant case against him
because his sister, GGG, no longer gives them financial support.
The RTC found convincing evidence that Suansing was aware that AAA is a mental retardate; that
appellant raped AAA; that AAA or FFF was not ill-motivated to falsely accuse appellant of such
crime; and, that proof of force or intimidation was unnecessary as a mental retardate is not capable of
giving consent to a sexual act. However, the RTC also ruled that since AAAs mental retardation was not
specifically alleged in the Amended Information, it cannot be considered as a qualifying circumstance that
would warrant the imposition of the death penalty. He was sentenced with reclusion perpetua.
The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC with respect to the assessment of the testimony of AAA. It
also affirmed the RTCs ruling not to consider the mental retardation of AAA as a qualifying
circumstance that would result in the imposition of the death penalty since it was not specifically alleged in
the Amended Information. However, the CA modified the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages
to conform to prevailing jurisprudence.
Suansing appealed for his exoneration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC and the CA gravely erred in convicting Suansing despite the failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:
The SC affirmed the decision of the CA with modifications with regard to:
(1) The appreciation of the fact of the appellants knowledge of AAAs mental retardation was alleged
in the Information; and
(2) The damages awarded.
 G.R. No. 189822 People v. Suansing September 2, 2013

For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that:
(1) The offender had carnal knowledge of a woman,
(2) through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when
she was under 12 years of age or was demented.
From these requisites, it can thus be deduced that rape is committed the moment the offender has sexual
intercourse with a person suffering from mental retardation.
Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape. A mental condition of retardation
deprives the complainant of that natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood.
For this reason, sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is incapable of
giving consent to the carnal act already constitutes rape, without requiring proof that the accused used
force and intimidation in committing the act.
Only the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim and the latters mental
retardation need to be proved.
The SC held that the evidence presented by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt
the sexual congress between appellant and AAA and the latters mental retardation. AAA
positively identified appellant as her rapist. She also described the manner by which the appellant
perpetuated the crime.
In addition, according to the SC:
(1) It is highly improbable that a mentally retarded victim would fabricate the rape charge against the
appellant, given her limited intellect.
(2) Mental retardation of AAA does not diminish the credibility and reliability of her testimony.
AAA was able to make known her perception, communicate her ordeal, in spite of some difficulty,
and identify appellant as her rapist.
(3) The absence of fresh lacerations does not negate sexual intercourse. What is required for a
consummated crime of rape is the mere touching of the labia by the penis.
AAA testified that appellants penis entered her vagina.
(4) Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim during the commission of the crime
of rape qualifies and makes it punishable by death. However, such knowledge by the rapist should be
alleged in the Information since a crime can only be qualified by circumstances pleaded in the
indictment.
Appellants knowledge of the mental disability of AAA at the time of the commission of the crime
of rape was properly alleged in the Amended
Information.
(5) The enactment of RA 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. In lieu thereof, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
(6) The amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages awarded to "AAA" are increased to P75,000.00
each. Appellant Jojie Suansing is also ordered to pay "AAA'' exemplary damages in the amount of
P25,000.00. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of
finality of this judgment until fully paid.
The lack of lacerated wounds in the vagina is not a defense. In an effort to secure his exoneration from the
charge of rape, Rivera pointed out that the records were bereft of evidence to prove that AAA suffered
vaginal lacerations. The Supreme Court held that the lack of lacerated wounds in the vagina, however, does
not negate sexual intercourse. Laceration of the hymen, even if considered the most telling and irrefutable
physical evidence of sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of
G.R. No. 189822 People v. Suansing September 2, 2013

rape. In the context used in the Revised Penal Code, carnal knowledge unlike its ordinary connotation
of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be
ruptured. Accordingly, granting arguendo that AAA did not suffer any laceration, Rivera would still be
guilty of rape after it was clearly established that he did succeed in having carnal knowledge of her. At any
rate, it has been repeatedly held that the medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a
prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to a
conviction.