View full case

PEOPLE v. EMILIANO DURANAN

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Emiliano Duranan, also known as "Kalbo," was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of two counts of rape. The first incident occurred on March 7, 1994, when the complainant, AAA, was dragged into a bathroom by accused-appellant. He threatened her and raped her despite her resistance. The second incident took place on March 8, 1994, when accused-appellant dragged AAA from her house to his room. He forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. After the incidents, accused-appellant sent letters professing love to AAA, which she tore up. AAA's mother, BBB, noticed her daughter's bruised lower lip and learned about what happened. They went to the police and had AAA examined by Dr. Rosalina O. Cosidon, who found evidence of recent loss of virginity. Accused-appellant denied the accusations and claimed that he was not at home during the alleged incidents. The trial court ultimately found accused-appellant guilty of two counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, as well as ordering him to indemnify AAA with P50,000. Accused-appellant appealed the decision, raising concerns about AAA's mental condition and the use of force and intimidation in the rape charges.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the private offended party is "deprived of reason" despite the absence of testimony by a competent medical expert to that effect and despite strong evidence on record to the contrary.

  2. Whether the trial court erred in alternatively holding that the accused is guilty of raping the private offended woman through "force and intimidation."

  3. Whether the complainant's mental retardation affects her competency to testify.

  4. Whether the absence of injury sustained by the complainant negates the presence of force and intimidation.

RULING:

  1. The contentions raised by the accused-appellant have no merit.

  2. First, the court held that the mother of the offended party, despite not being a psychiatrist, is competent to testify on the mental condition of her daughter if she has sufficient knowledge and observation of the person's speech, manner, habits, and conduct. In this case, the mother testified on the mental condition of her daughter and provided details regarding her daughter's behavior and abilities. The trial court found the mother's testimony credible and concluded that the complainant was mentally deficient. The Supreme Court deferred to the trial court's findings on this matter.

  3. Second, the accused-appellant argued that the complainant could not be a competent witness due to her mental retardation. However, the court ruled that any person who can perceive and make known their perception is qualified to be a witness, regardless of mental capacity. In this case, the complainant was able to provide testimony about the accused-appellant's actions against her. Therefore, the court considered her a competent witness.

  4. The issue of the complainant's competency to testify should have been raised by the defense at the outset and cannot be raised for the first time in the appeal. Furthermore, the objection to the complainant's competency is deemed waived if there is a failure to make a timely objection during the trial.

  5. The absence of injuries sustained by the complainant does not negate the presence of force and intimidation. In proving rape, it is not essential to show physical injuries. What is important is to prove that sexual intercourse was accomplished without the complainant's consent. In this case, the absence of consent is shown by the fact that the complainant is a mental retardate vulnerable to intimidation by the accused-appellant. The degree of force or intimidation required for the act to constitute rape is relative and must be viewed in the light of the complainant's perception and judgment at the time of the offense. The force or intimidation required for a mentally retarded victim may not be as great compared to a person of normal capacity.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Rule 130, Section 50 of the Revised Rules on Evidence allows an ordinary witness to give their opinion on the mental sanity or condition of a person if they have sufficient opportunity to observe the person's speech, manner, habits, and conduct.

  • The findings of fact of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal, as the trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses and make factual determinations.

  • Objections to the competency of a witness must be raised during the trial and cannot be raised for the first time in the appeal.

  • The absence of physical injuries does not negate the presence of force and intimidation in proving rape.

  • The degree of force or intimidation required for rape may vary depending on the victim's mental capacity.

  • The force or intimidation required may be constructive when the victim is so weak in intellect that she is incapable of rational consent.