Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SALVADOR GOLIMLIM 427 SCRA 15 (2004)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SALVADOR GOLIMLIM 427 SCRA 15 (2004)

A mental retardate is not per se disqualified from testifying. AAA is a mental retardate. When her mother Amparo Hachero (Amparo) left for Singapore to work, she entrusted Evelyn to the care and custody of her sister Jovita Guban (Jovita) and the latter‘s husband appellant Salvador. In August 1996, Jovita left the house to meet someone, leaving Evelyn with Golimlim. Taking advantage of the situation, Golimlim instructed AAA to sleep, and soon after she had laid down, he kissed her and took off her clothes. As he poked at her an object which to Evelyn felt like a knife, he proceeded to insert his penis into her vagina. When Jovita arrived, AAA told her about what Golimlim did to her. Jovita, however, did not believe her. Lorna Hachero (Lorna), AAA‘s half-sister, received a letter from their mother Amparo instructing her to fetch Evelyn from Sorsogon and allow her to stay in Quezon City. Dutifully, Lorna immediately proceeded to Golimlim‘s home and brought Evelyn with her to Manila. A week after she brought Evelyn to stay with her, Lorna suspected that her sister was pregnant as she noticed her growing belly. She thereupon brought her to a doctor for check-up and ultrasound examination. The examinations revealed that Evelyn was indeed pregnant. She thus asked her sister how she became pregnant, to which Evelyn replied that appellant had sexual intercourse with her while holding a knife. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon convicted Golimlim of the crime of rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the testimony of a mental retardate should be given weight and credence

HELD:

The trial judge‘s assessment of the credibility of witnesses‘ testimonies is accorded great respect on appeal in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on its part, it having had the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of the witnesses. A mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness, her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to. In the present case, no cogent reason can be appreciated to warrant a departure from the findings of the trial court with respect to the assessment of Evelyn‘s testimony. It is settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape which does not require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim for conviction. The fact of Evelyn‘s mental retardation was not, however, alleged in the Information and, therefore, cannot be the basis for conviction. Such notwithstanding, that force and intimidation attended the commission of the crime, the mode of commission alleged in the Information, was adequately proven. It bears stating herein that the mental faculties of a retardate being different from those of a normal person, the degree of force needed to overwhelm him or her is less. Hence, a quantum of force which may not suffice when the victim is a normal person may be more than enough when employed against an imbecile.