This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-03-14 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The allegation that appellant and the victim were sweethearts is not a plausible defense. In previously decided rape cases involving mental retardates, other accused have tried to use this defense, but to no avail.[27] We ruled therein that the fact that the victim is a mental retardate makes this defense untenable. In the victim's deficient state of mind, she could not have induced her assailant to nurse a desire to have her for a sweetheart, nor could she have possessed the capacity to understand the meaning of such a relationship. Consequently, being without any exculpating defense, appellant's admission of having sexual intercourse with the victim proves, without question, his guilt under the January 9, 1995 charge. | |||||