GR L 10853; (May, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10853; May 18, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALVADOR PONELAS Y INAJE AND JAVIER ENORIO Y HERNANDEZ, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Salvador Ponelas and Javier Enorio were convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Manila. Pending appeal to the Court of Appeals, Ponelas withdrew his appeal. As counsel for Enorio raised only questions of law, the case was certified to the Supreme Court. The victim, after being raped, jumped into a river and was rescued but later died in the hospital from respiratory failure due to submersion. A vaginal smear tested positive for sperm cells. Ponelas, upon investigation, admitted to the rape and implicated Enorio, whose written confession was also obtained. Both reenacted the crime. The complaint for rape was filed by Leonor Sarabia, who identified the deceased in the morgue as her missing niece and acted as her guardian. During the trial, however, Sarabia testified for the defense, recanting her identification and stating the victim was not her niece (Flora de Cesareo) but someone who resembled her actual missing niece (Amalia Sarabia). Based on this, the defense moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the prosecution for rape required a complaint by the offended party, her parents, grandparents, or guardian under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, which was allegedly not complied with.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the rape case despite the subsequent recantation of the complainant, Leonor Sarabia, regarding her identification and guardianship of the victim.
RULING
The trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Leonor Sarabia filed the complaint as the guardian of the victim after examining and identifying the body in the morgue. The trial court did not give credence to Sarabia’s recantation, noting her wavering attitude and discrepancies in her testimony, such as the difference in the victim’s name (Flora) and her niece’s name (Amalia), and her voluntary subscription to the complaint. Since the appeal was taken purely on a question of law, the Supreme Court is bound by the trial court’s factual finding that Sarabia instituted the action as guardian, which sufficed to confer jurisdiction under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. The motion to dismiss was properly denied. The decision convicting Javier Enorio is affirmed.