G.R. No. 119368 August 18, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCELINO “Senoy” ERARDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Marcelino “Senoy” Erardo, was charged with the rape of Julie Ann Kiam, a 12-year-old mental retardate, on June 1, 1993. The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the eyewitness account of the victim’s aunt, Jennylyn Cordero. She testified that she saw the victim wave at the accused and walk towards a thicket, followed by the accused. Upon following them, she discovered the accused pulling up his pants and the victim sitting nearby, naked from the waist down. The victim’s mother, Delia Cordero-Kiam, testified that the accused went to her house the next day to ask for forgiveness, admitting to having sexual intercourse with Julie Ann but claiming he was careful not to hurt her.
The victim, Julie Ann Kiam, testified in a simple manner, stating that the accused “iyot” (a colloquial term for sexual intercourse) her, which she described as “tusok” (stab) using his “titi” (penis), and that it caused her pain. Medical examination by Dr. Hurley de los Reyes three days after the incident revealed old hymenal lacerations, estimated to be one to two weeks old, which could have been caused by a blunt object like a penis. Dr. Ray Sague testified that the victim suffered from mental retardation, possessing the mentality of a three-year-old child. The Regional Trial Court convicted Erardo of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issues on appeal were: (1) whether the medical finding of old hymenal lacerations negated the commission of rape on the date alleged, and (2) whether the testimonial evidence, particularly that of the mentally retarded victim, was sufficient to sustain a conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court held that the medical finding of old lacerations did not disprove the rape. The physician testified the lacerations could have been caused by a male penis and were one to two weeks old, a timeframe that included the date of the alleged crime. The Court emphasized that fresh injuries are not indispensable for a rape conviction; the credible testimony of the victim is sufficient. On the second issue, the Court found the victim’s testimony credible. While her cross-examination revealed some inconsistencies (initially stating penetration was by a finger and a piece of wood), her direct testimony was clear, straightforward, and consistent on the material point of sexual assault by the accused. The Court noted that the testimony of a mentally retarded victim, given in a simple manner consistent with her mental capacity, is entitled to weight. Her testimony was corroborated by the eyewitness account of her aunt and the accused’s own admission to the victim’s mother. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld, but the indemnity was increased from P40,000 to P50,000 in line with prevailing jurisprudence for the rape of a mental retardate.