No rational consent

This is another case where the carnal intercourse appears to be voluntary but it is still considered as a crime of rape. It shows that the consent to the sexual intercourse is not considered as present even if the victim did not resist and despite the absence of force or intimidation on the part of the accused. Under what circumstances can rape be still be committed even if the prosecution has not proven the use of force and intimidation by the accused in having carnal knowledge with the victim.

This is the case of Rhea, over 13 years of age and the eight of the 14 children of a couple living in an island province. While she is already a teenager, she was born a deaf mute and could communicate only by means of signs. She was feeble-minded (kulang kulang) and had the mental capacity of a seven-year-old child, playing with small children and taking a bath naked in a public place. She had to stop going to school because she created trouble and quarreled with classmates. So she was not allowed to go out of the house unescorted.

But one afternoon she was able to leave the house unnoticed and alone to go to a theater and watch a movie. Among the people watching the movie were Jeralt and Yuan. When Yuan went to the comfort room he heard the moaning sound of a woman coming from the adjacent women’s room. So Yuan stood at the toilet bowl and looked at the ladies room. He saw Rhea standing with her back against the wall while Jeralt was holding her two hands and having sexual intercourse with her. So Yuan immediately left and reported the matter to Jodi, the theater owner. But Jodi told him not to mind what he saw.

Yuan then waited for Rhea to step out of the theater and followed her to her house to report the incident to her parents. Then he accompanied Rhea’s father Julius to the police department to look for Jeralt at the public market where he was a vendor in order to arrest him and bring him to the headquarters. After the proper investigation and medical examination of Rhea, Jeralt was charged in Court for the crime of rape.

After arraignment where Jeralt pleaded not guilty and after trial, the court rendered a decision convicting Jeralt of rape. The court said that even if the prosecution was not able to prove that Jeralt used force or intimidation on Rhea in having carnal knowledge of her, he is still guilty because the offended girl was a deaf mute and demented girl. And under her mental and physical condition, there could not have been voluntary consent to the sexual intercourse.

This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The SC said that because of the physical and mental condition of Rhea, she could not have given rational consent to the carnal intercourse. It would have required a great deal of effort for a 13-year-old deaf mute girl to resist the sexual assault of Jeralt, a 5’8” market vendor especially so because it was unexpected considering the place and time of its perpetration. Only a mind fully aware of the moral and social consequences of the consummation of such sexual assault could have given an intelligent consent or to gather courage to resist and repel such aggression. The victim in this case has no full awareness of the moral and social consequences of sexual aggression because she could not even understand the implication of taking a bath naked in a public place by jumping over the bridge. Jeralt’s contention that Rhea consented and even initiated the carnal intercourse in the men’s comfort room is inherently incredible. It is belied by the evidence that the act was perpetrated in the ladies comfort room. Besides, there is no evidence other than his self-serving testimony that Rhea is capable of the perversions imputed to her by Jeralt (People vs Burgos, G.R. L-40494, July 30, 1982).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]