G.R. No. 186379; August 19, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO LAZARO @ BENING, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Bienvenido Lazaro, was charged with the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. The prosecution alleged that on August 31, 1995, in Odiongan, Romblon, Lazaro, whom the 11-year-old victim AAA called “Lolo,” forcibly took her to his house while she was on her way to school. There, he removed her panties, made her lie down, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. He then threatened to kill her if she told anyone. The incident was later revealed by AAA to her uncle, BBB, on September 29, 1995, after he noticed her changed demeanor. A medical examination confirmed healed lacerations consistent with penetration.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Lazaro claimed he was at the port selling crops at the time of the alleged incident. He also testified that he later saw AAA with another person in a compromising situation and that he was the one who reported this and even accompanied her for a medical check-up. His niece corroborated his whereabouts on a different date.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for the crime of rape, but not for forcible abduction, and modified the damages awarded. The Court found the appeal without merit. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the complaint was validly filed by the victim’s uncle, BBB. While Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code grants the right to file a complaint to the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, the law does not require that the complainant personally sign the verification if the complaint is initiated by the proper parties. Here, the Information was filed by the public prosecutor upon the sworn complaint of BBB, who acted on behalf of the minor victim, which is permissible.
On the substantive issue, the Court found AAA’s testimony to be credible, straightforward, and consistent on the material points of the rape. The alleged inconsistency regarding the date (August 12 vs. August 31) was deemed inconsequential and did not affect her credibility, as the core fact of sexual violation remained unwavering. The medical findings corroborated her account. In contrast, the defense of alibi was weak and uncorroborated, and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The Court sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Following prevailing jurisprudence, the Court affirmed the award of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and additionally awarded ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages due to the victim’s minority.