G.R. No. 200157 , August 31, 2016
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. “Jake Deliola”, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Joery Deliola y Barrido was charged with two counts of Statutory Rape. The Informations alleged that in June 2002 and on July 1, 2002, in Manapla, Negros Occidental, the accused, then 15 years old and the uncle of the victim, with the use of a bladed weapon and through force, threat, and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the victim, MMM, who was then 11 years old. During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. The parties stipulated on several facts, including the court’s jurisdiction, the identity of the accused, the familial relationship (accused is the uncle of MMM), MMM’s age (11 years old at the time of the incidents), that they were neighbors, that MMM was a grade school pupil, and that accused-appellant was not attending school.
The prosecution’s evidence established that in the first week of June 2002, MMM went to a nipa plantation to defecate. Accused-appellant suddenly appeared, armed with a knife, poked it at her neck, ordered her to bend over, removed her shorts and underwear, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. MMM felt pain and cried. After the act, accused-appellant threatened to kill her if she told anyone. MMM went home, bathed, and noticed bloodstains on her underwear but remained silent out of fear. On or about July 1, 2002, a similar incident occurred at the same location where accused-appellant again used a knife to threaten MMM and raped her. About two weeks after the second incident, MMM’s grandmother noticed something unusual in her walk and confronted her. MMM then revealed the rapes. She was brought for a medical examination and to the police. Dr. Edbert Jayme, the Municipal Health Officer, testified that his examination revealed positive hyperemia of the vulva and an incomplete hymenal laceration at 3:00 and 7:00 positions, injuries consistent with the insertion of a blunt object like an erect penis, and that the lacerations were fresh, possibly inflicted within two weeks prior to the exam. The defense presented only accused-appellant, who denied the allegations and claimed he was fishing with his grandfather during the alleged times of the incidents.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Statutory Rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s conviction. The Court found no reason to deviate from the lower courts’ findings. The elements of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, were proven: (1) the offended party was under 12 years of age (MMM was 11, as evidenced by her Birth Certificate), and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim. The victim’s credible and categorical testimony, corroborated by the medical findings, sufficiently established the fact of sexual intercourse. The defenses of denial and alibi proffered by accused-appellant were found to be weak and unconvincing. However, considering that accused-appellant was a “child in conflict with the law” (being 15 years old at the time of the commission of the crime), the Supreme Court, in accordance with Republic Act No. 9344 (The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), suspended the pronouncement of judgment and remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court for appropriate disposition under the said law. The Court also modified the awards of damages, condemning accused-appellant to pay the victim, for each count of rape, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.