Case Digest (G.R. No. 200157)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Joery Deliola y Barrido, G.R. No. 200157, August 31, 2016, Supreme Court En Banc, Perez, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Joery Deliola y Barrido (also "Jake Deliola"). The victim is identified in the record as MMM (name withheld).In June and July 2002 two Informations charged Joery Deliola with two counts of statutory rape (Criminal Case Nos. 5214‑69 and 5215‑69), alleging that Deliola, then about 15 years old and the victim’s uncle, raped MMM, then 11 years old, at a nipa plantation with the use of a bladed weapon, threats and intimidation. On arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. At the joint pre‑trial the parties stipulated to several facts, including the ages and relationship of the parties and that the court had jurisdiction; trial on the merits followed.
MMM testified she was raped twice—once in the first week of June 2002 and again on July 1, 2002—describing threats with a knife, forced removal of clothing, penetration, pain and subsequent bleeding; she delayed disclosure out of fear. Dr. Edbert Jayme, the Municipal Health Officer, testified to vaginal hyperemia, fresh incomplete hymenal lacerations at 3:00 and 7:00 positions and a vagina able to admit two fingers, findings he opined were recent and consistent with forced penetration. The defense presented the accused’s lone testimony denying the acts and asserting an alibi that he was fishing with his grandfather.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City, on December 22, 2005 convicted Deliola of rape (as defined in Article 266‑A and 266‑B, as amended by R.A. No. 8353) and imposed reclusion perpetua for each count and awards of moral and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a June 29, 2011 decision but, noting the accused was a child in conflict with the law, suspended the pronouncement of sentence and remanded the case to the RTC for disposition under Section 38 of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- As a procedural question: Did accused‑appellant, who was 15 years old when the offenses occurred, act with discernment so as to be criminally liable and what is the proper penalty and disposition under R.A. No. 9344 and applicable penal provisions?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of statutory rape (victim under 12 years of age and carnal knowledge)?
- Are the victim’s testimony and the medico‑legal findings sufficiently credible to support conviction despite alleged inconsistencies and possible congenital hymenal defect?
- Does the approximation of the date in the Informations ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)