FACTS:

On January 20, 2011, a 14-year-old girl named AAA, who was believed to have an intellectual disability, was in a vacant lot in Quezon City with her niece. Accused-appellant Gabatbat, a friend of AAA's father, was also present. Gabatbat chased AAA, caught up with her, and physically assaulted her before dragging her into a hut in the vacant lot. Inside the hut, Gabatbat forced himself on AAA, threatening her with a knife. He warned her not to tell anyone about the incident or he would harm her family. AAA eventually disclosed the rape to her mother two months later, who brought her to the police station for a medical examination. The examination revealed evidence of previous trauma. AAA executed a sworn statement regarding the incident. Gabatbat denied the charges and claimed he was elsewhere during the time of the incident. He was charged with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, pleaded not guilty, and was eventually convicted by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but modified the damages awarded. Gabatbat appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning his guilt.

The case involves the interpretation of the term "intellectual disability" and its application to the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The court explains that "deprived of reason," as mentioned in the law, encompasses individuals with mental abnormality, intellectual disability, or mental deficiency of reason. A previous case had defined intellectual disability as a chronic condition present from birth or early childhood, characterized by impaired intellectual functioning and impaired adaptation to daily demands.

The court further explains that "intellectual disability" refers to varying degrees of severity of cognitive impairment. It outlines the manifestations of intellectual disability through physical and behavioral indicators, such as dentition, walking ability, self-care skills, resistance to infection, dependency on others, and speech capacity. Severe intellectual disability may be characterized by physical deformities, limited self-care abilities, unclean appearance, gait disturbances, involuntary movements, and limited communication abilities. The court clarifies that carnal knowledge of a woman with intellectual disability constitutes rape under the mentioned provision because she is incapable of giving consent.

To successfully prosecute such cases, the prosecution must establish both the act of sexual intercourse between the accused and the survivor and the survivor's intellectual disability. The court allows the use of both clinical and non-clinical evidence. Clinical evidence includes psychiatric or comprehensive medical evaluations diagnosing the survivor's intellectual disability, along with other supporting records and tests. Non-clinical evidence consists of the survivor's testimony, testimony from ordinary witnesses, and the observations of the trial court regarding the survivor's conduct and demeanor. The court acknowledges that a common issue in these cases is whether clinical evidence is necessary to establish intellectual disability.

ISSUES:

1. Whether clinical evidence is necessary to prove intellectual disability in cases of rape of intellectually disabled individuals.

2. Whether non-clinical evidence is admissible to prove intellectual disability.

3. Whether the absence of clinical, laboratory, and psychometric support to prove intellectual disability affects the credibility of non-clinical evidence.

4. Whether the use of non-parametric tests with low reliability in evaluating intellectual disability affects the validity of the diagnosis.

5. Whether Dr. Escuadra's evaluation could be used as evidence in the case.

6. Whether the evaluation conducted by Dr. Escuadra was sufficient to establish the complainant's intellectual disability.

7. Whether non-clinical evidence is admissible to prove intellectual disability.

8. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the rape survivor is mentally disabled.

9. Whether the qualifying circumstance of intellectual disability should be appreciated in the commission of rape.

10. Whether clinical evidence is necessary to prove intellectual disability in cases where the boundaries between normality and intellectual disability are difficult to delineate by ordinary persons.

11. Whether the intellectual disability of the rape survivor has been sufficiently proved.

RULING:

1. Non-clinical evidence is admissible to prove intellectual disability in cases of rape of intellectually disabled individuals.

2. Admissibility of non-clinical evidence does not necessarily mean credibility, and clinical evidence is still considered as more reliable evidence.

3. The absence of clinical, laboratory, and psychometric support affects the credibility of non-clinical evidence in proving intellectual disability.

4. The use of non-parametric tests with low reliability in evaluating intellectual disability affects the validity of the diagnosis.

5. Assuming arguendo that Dr. Escuadra's evaluation could be used as evidence, it is held that the basis for her evaluation was insufficient.

6. The evaluation conducted by Dr. Escuadra was not deemed sufficient in establishing the complainant's intellectual disability.

7. Both clinical and non-clinical evidence are admissible to prove intellectual disability. However, in borderline cases where the acts, speech, appearance, conduct, demeanor, and deportment of the rape survivor are ambiguous, expert clinical evidence must be introduced to prove intellectual disability.

8. The Court finds that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the rape survivor is mentally disabled. The medical documents submitted by the prosecutor were not formally offered in evidence and the defense was not given the opportunity to object or cross-examine the witness who could identify them. Furthermore, the behavior and demeanor of the rape survivor is ambiguous and does not clearly indicate intellectual disability.

9. The Court affirms the finding of the trial court that the qualifying circumstance of intellectual disability should not be appreciated. The information did not allege the mental disability of the victim, and this fact was not clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt.

10. Clinical evidence is necessary to prove intellectual disability if the boundaries between normality and intellectual disability are difficult to delineate by ordinary persons. In borderline cases where the acts, speech, appearance, conduct, demeanor, and deportment of the rape survivor are ambiguous, expert clinical evidence must be introduced to prove intellectual disability. Ordinary persons are not credible to ascertain the mental status of the rape survivor and are not competent to distinguish between abnormal behavior arising from a mental abnormality and normal behavior arising from various factors.

11. The intellectual disability of the rape survivor has not been sufficiently proved. However, the use of force and threat has been convincingly proved through the testimony of the rape survivor, the medico-legal report, and positive identification of the accused. The accused is hence guilty of simple rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

PRINCIPLES:

• Carnal knowledge of an intellectually disabled individual is rape since they are incapable of giving consent (Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b)).

• Intellectual disability must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and can be established through both clinical and non-clinical evidence.

• Clinical evidence of intellectual disability may include psychiatric evaluation, comprehensive medical evaluation, and other clinical, laboratory, and psychometric support.

• Non-clinical evidence of intellectual disability may include the testimony of the rape survivor, testimony of ordinary witnesses, and observation by the trial court.

• Non-clinical evidence is admissible to prove intellectual disability, but its credibility may be affected without supporting clinical evidence.

• The use of non-parametric tests with low reliability may affect the validity of the diagnosis of intellectual disability.

• Identification of mental deficient subjects cannot be left to ambiguous social notions and assumptions alone. Proper clinical determination of mental deficiency requires psychometric diagnosis, comprehensive medical evaluation, and confirmation using the proper tests.

• Intellectual disability is a recognized clinical syndrome that usually has an organic cause. It requires competent clinical evaluation in conjunction with medical and laboratory tests.

• Clinical evidence is necessary to prove intellectual disability when the boundaries between normality and intellectual disability are difficult to delineate by ordinary persons.

• Expert clinical evidence is required in borderline cases where the acts, speech, appearance, conduct, demeanor, and deportment of the rape survivor are ambiguous to ascertain the presence of mental abnormality.

• In a rape charge, non-clinical evidence alone is insufficient to prove intellectual disability and establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

• The court cannot consider evidence that has not been formally offered. A formal offer is necessary to allow the opposing party to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. It also facilitates review by appellate courts. (Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha)

• The boundaries between normality and mental disability may be difficult to delineate by ordinary persons. Behavior and demeanor that may appear abnormal should not be automatically equated with intellectual disability, especially when the testimony demonstrates a modicum of intelligence.

• Clinical evidence is necessary to prove intellectual disability if the boundaries between normality and intellectual disability are difficult to delineate by ordinary persons.

• Expert clinical evidence must be introduced to prove intellectual disability in borderline cases where the behavior of the victim is ambiguous.

• Ordinary persons are not credible to ascertain the mental status of an individual and are not competent to distinguish between abnormal behavior arising from a mental abnormality and normal behavior arising from other factors.

• The use of force and threat can be established through the testimony of the victim, medico-legal reports, and positive identification of the accused.