G.R. No. 91116 ; January 24, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONARDO GERONES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Leonardo Gerones and his co-accused Calixto Raga were charged with the rape of Liliosa Gargantilla, a 22-year-old mental retardate with the mental capacity of a ten-year-old child. The information alleged that on or about August 30, 1986, in Palo, Leyte, the accused, conspiring and mutually helping each other, dragged and pushed the victim to Raga, who had carnal knowledge of her against her will, with Gerones providing a deadly weapon. The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of rape and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to indemnify the victim’s heirs.
Gerones appealed, contending the trial court erred in finding him guilty. He challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was signed by a mentally incompetent woman. He also questioned the victim’s competency as a witness, the medical findings (negative for spermatozoa and an old laceration), and presented an alibi, claiming he was watching a movie at the time of the incident.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Leonardo Gerones of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the complaint filed by the victim’s father with the barangay captain, coupled with the information filed by the Provincial Prosecutor, sufficiently conferred jurisdiction. Rule 110, Section 5 allows the State to initiate a criminal action on behalf of a deceased or incapacitated person. Regarding the victim’s competency as a witness, the trial court’s assessment is accorded great respect. The Court found that Liliosa, despite her mental state, was verbally productive and able to communicate her ordeal clearly and consistently, satisfying the requirement under Rule 130, Section 20 of the Rules of Court that a witness can perceive and make known that perception to others. Her positive identification of the accused was credible, and no improper motive was shown.
The medical findings did not negate the rape. The presence of spermatozoa is immaterial, as penetration, not ejaculation, constitutes rape. The old laceration was explained by the victim’s disorientation as to time, indicating the rape could have occurred earlier than the date specified. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the victim’s positive identification. Furthermore, the subsequent acts of the accused, including an offer of marriage and an attempt at a monetary settlement, were considered admissions of guilt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, but the indemnity was increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in line with prevailing jurisprudence.