This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In People v. Dalandas,[33] the Court renders the following exposition on mental retardation and its various levels, viz: Mental retardation is a chronic condition present from birth or early childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by standardized tests. It manifests itself in impaired adaptation to the daily demands of the individual's own social environment. Commonly, a mental retardate exhibits a slow rate of maturation, physical and/or psychological, as well as impaired learning capacity. | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in finding that Conchita was a mental retardate. According to him, the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the victim's mental retardation citing People v. Dalandas.[24] The CA found the said argument meritorious, as with this Court. The CA thus ruled that: However, the prosecution failed to present any clinical evidence to establish that private complainant was indeed a mental retardate. It merely relied on the testimony of Zenaida Andallon who stated that private complainant does not know how to read and write, does not know how to cook rice, does not respect anyone and acts like a child. While it is a settled rule that mental retardation can be proved by evidence other than clinical evidence,[25] it is, however, an equally settled doctrine that clinical evidence is necessary in borderline cases when it is difficult to ascertain whether the victim is of a normal mind or is suffering from a mild mental retardation.[26] To Our mind, such clinical evidence is indispensable in the present case considering that there is a difficulty in ascertaining the mental condition of private complainant. To be sure, the mere fact that private complainant does not know how to read and write, or to cook rice, or that she acts like a child are not conclusive indication that she is a mental retardate. There are people who manifest the same behavior despite being perfectly normal. In fact, even Dr. Artos recommended that private complainant be made to undergo further examination by a psychiatrist in order to come up with a better assessment of her mental condition.[27] To reiterate, knowledge by the appellant of the fact that private complainant is a mental retardate would make him liable for qualified rape. Such being the case, the prosecution must likewise prove beyond reasonable doubt that (1) private complainant is a mental retardate, and (2) appellant knew of such mental condition. The failure of the prosecution to establish the first renders the second immaterial. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove that private complainant is a mental retardate, appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape. | |||||
|
2004-01-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The appellant does not dispute the trial court's finding that Marina was suffering from a mental deficiency; that she was a mental retardate. In People v. Dalandas,[13] we held that:…And the observation of the trial court, its impression of the demeanor and deportment of the victim and its conclusions anchored thereon are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect on the appellate court. In State vs. Haner, the Supreme Court of Iowa declared: | |||||