G.R. No. 105375 September 28, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Virgilio “Jimmer” Bolado and Ernesto Aseñas, accused, Ernesto Aseñas, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Amended Information was filed against Virgilio “Jimmer” Bolado and Ernesto Aseñas for the crime of Rape committed on August 26, 1990, at about 6:00 a.m. at Sitio Cambo-ay, Barangay Canaway, Siaton, Negros Oriental. The accused, conspiring together and by means of violence and intimidation, allegedly had carnal knowledge with Delia Ellurig, a 17-year-old deaf mute, against her will. The complaint was filed by the victim’s mother, Irenea Ellurig. Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution evidence established that on said date and time, Delia Ellurig went to the Canaway River to bathe. Accused Bolado and Aseñas hit her with stones, causing multiple lacerated wounds on her head, and carried her to the ground where they raped her three times. Prosecution witness Diomedes Quirit testified he saw the accused strike the victim with stones, rendering her apparently unconscious, and then take turns having sexual intercourse with her while she was incapacitated. The victim’s mother discovered blood on the victim’s forehead and panties and brought her to the hospital. Medical examinations confirmed the head injuries and recent vaginal penetration with healed hymenal lacerations.
In his defense, accused-appellant Aseñas denied the rape, claiming he was at home sick and being treated by an “ambolario.” He also alleged that prosecution witness Quirit testified against him out of revenge because Aseñas had reported Quirit to the police as an NPA member.
The Regional Trial Court found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three distinct crimes of rape. Bolado, due to minority, was sentenced to indeterminate prison terms. Aseñas was sentenced to three prison terms of reclusion perpetua. Both were ordered to pay moral damages.

ISSUE

The main issue raised on appeal by accused-appellant Aseñas is whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case given that the Information was filed by the mother of the offended party and not by the offended party herself.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that the trial court had jurisdiction. Under paragraphs 3 and 4, Section 5 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the offenses of rape shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardians. Where the offended party is a minor and fails to file the complaint, her parents may file the same. Since Delia Ellurig was 17 years old (a minor) at the time of the rape, the complaint filed by her mother was sufficient. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offended party subsequently signed the complaint during the pre-trial stage. The Court reiterated that the complaint is a condition precedent to prosecution, not what confers jurisdiction, which is vested by the Judiciary Law.
The Court also found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses, particularly Diomedes Quirit, and rejected the accused-appellant’s claim of ulterior motive as uncorroborated. The guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt through positive identification by witnesses and medical evidence.