GR 93929 31; (May, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93929-31 May 8, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO CABODAC y ORAS alias “BUBOY SERRANO,” accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Fernando Cabodac was charged with three counts of statutory rape against Regina de la Peña, an eight-year-old girl. The Informations alleged the crimes were committed “in or about the month of February 1989,” “on or about the 27th day of February 1989,” and “on or about the 24th day of April 1989.” The prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, her mother Corazon Ocampo, a police investigator, and a medico-legal officer. Regina testified that the accused, their neighbor, pulled her into a toilet, kissed her, undressed her, kissed her private part, made her hold and insert his private part into her mouth, made her lie on a bed, and inserted his penis into her vagina. This happened multiple times when she and her baby sister were alone. The medico-legal examination confirmed healed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse. The defense relied on denial and alibi, claiming he was working as a mason on the dates in question and that the charges were motivated by the mother’s anger over unpaid wages for construction work on her house. The Regional Trial Court convicted him on all three counts.
ISSUE
1. Whether the testimony of the eight-year-old victim is credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction.
2. Whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction over the cases despite the alleged absence of a complaint by the offended party.
3. Whether all three counts of rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court found the victim’s testimony credible. Despite her youth, she testified with candor, sincerity, and sufficient clarity, providing a detailed and unwavering account of the sexual abuses. Her testimony was free from self-contradiction and was consistent with the medico-legal findings.
2. Yes. The Trial Court had jurisdiction. The prosecution was initiated by the offended party and her mother, who filed sworn statements with the police. The Informations explicitly stated they were filed “upon sworn complaint originally filed by the offended party.” Jurisdiction is conferred by law, not by the complaint, which is merely a condition precedent for prosecution.
3. No, only two counts were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court acquitted the accused for the rape alleged to have been committed “in or about the month of February 1989” (Crim. Case No. 77768) because the date was too vague and the evidence did not sufficiently distinguish it from the rape charged on February 27, 1989. The convictions for the rapes committed on February 27, 1989, and April 24, 1989, were affirmed. The judgment of the Regional Trial Court was modified accordingly.