This case has been cited 2 times or more.
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
It can be deduced from the aforequoted provision that for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that; (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under 12 years of age or is demented.[29] The term "woman deprived of reason" includes one suffering from mental retardation.[30] Clearly, carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under the aforesaid provisions of law. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.[31] | |||||
2009-08-07 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
Furthermore, where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is not necessary.[28] The observations of the trial judge coupled with evidence[29] establishing the person's state of mental sanity will suffice.[30] Here, the trial judge was given ample opportunity to observe Lulu personally when she testified before the RTC. |