Title
People vs. Lerio
Case
G.R. No. 116729
Decision Date
Jan 31, 2000
A 19-year-old farmer sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl; despite an intact hymen, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction for statutory rape, affirming reclusion perpetua and damages.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14947)

Facts:

  • General Information
    • Appellant: Marlon Lerio (also known as Roman), a 19-year-old, single farmer from San Macario Norte, Natividad, Pangasinan.
    • Victim: Jennifer M. Soriano, an 11-year-old grade five student.
    • Charged Crime: Statutory rape under Article 335, No. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
    • Incident Date and Place: January 22, 1992, in the evening at Barangay San Macario Norte, Natividad, Pangasinan, specifically along piles of dried cogon.
  • Sequence of Events and Prosecution’s Account
    • At approximately 7:15 p.m. on January 22, 1992, Jennifer Soriano, while on her way to watch television at the house of Apong Belen Casandig, was intercepted.
      • Appellant Lerio grabbed the minor, covered her mouth so that she could not call for help, and forcibly carried her toward a location where piles of dried cogon were present.
      • Despite her struggles to free herself, the victim was subdued.
    • Appellant’s actions after subduing her:
      • He laid her down on the dried cogon and proceeded to remove her underwear.
      • He then positioned himself on top of her and sexually assaulted her, inflicting what she later described as pain felt “at the center.”
      • When the victim’s parents called her name, the appellant released her; she ran away carrying her underwear.
    • Supporting Testimonies and Physical Evidence:
      • Barangay Captain Floro B. Volante testified that he was informed by Arsenio Soriano, the victim’s father, and subsequently visited the crime scene where disarranged piles of cogon and a headband belonging to the victim were found.
      • Estrelita M. Soriano, the victim’s mother, testified that upon examining her daughter, she found evidence such as reddish discoloration of the private parts and traces of seminal fluid.
      • Dr. Perfecto Tebangin, the Rural Health Officer, conducted a medical examination 14 days after the incident; although the victim reported being raped, he observed that her hymen was intact and found no scratches, scars, or hematoma.
    • Formal Charging and Trial Process:
      • On June 10, 1992, appellant was charged in an Information filed on the verified complaint of Estrelita M. Soriano.
      • The charge alleged that on or about January 22, 1992, using force and intimidation, the appellant had carnal knowledge of an 11-year-old minor against her will.
      • During arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty.
      • At trial, the prosecution presented four witnesses:
        • Barangay Captain Floro B. Volante.
        • Estrelita M. Soriano, the victim’s mother.
        • Jennifer M. Soriano, the victim.
        • Dr. Perfecto B. Tebangin, Municipal Health Officer.
      • For the defense, the appellant was the sole witness; he claimed:
        • On the night of the incident, he was at his grandfather’s house watching television.
        • He left the house to urinate and, on his return, met the victim near her house.
        • He invited her to get some akomiksa from his uncle’s home, during which he held her hand and gave her a kiss on the lips—but denied engaging in any further sexual activity.
        • He argued that the charge was filed as a result of the victim’s parents being infuriated upon learning about the kiss.
  • Evidentiary Presentation and Trial Court Decision
    • The trial court, after considering the testimonies and evidence presented, found the victim’s testimony credible and unequivocal.
    • Despite the defense’s argument and the medical report that indicated an intact hymen, the court noted:
      • The absence of vaginal lacerations or rupture of the hymen does not negate the occurrence of rape.
      • The medical examination, done 14 days after the incident, was merely corroborative.
    • On July 7, 1994, the trial court rendered its decision:
      • The appellant was found guilty of statutory rape.
      • He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua along with accessory penalties (civil interdiction for life and perpetual absolute disqualification).
      • The appellant was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim.
  • Grounds for Appeal
    • The appellant argued:
      • That the trial court erred in giving full credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, which he labeled as highly incredible, inconsistent, and unreliable.
      • That the court disregarded the medical certificate issued by Dr. Tebangin.
      • That his defense, including his denial and alibi, should have been given more weight.
      • He maintained that even if some form of sexual contact occurred, it did not amount to consummation of the act due to the victim’s constant resistance.
  • Prosecution’s Rejoinder and Overall Evidentiary Context
    • The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that:
      • The credibility of the victim and her witnesses is strongly supported by their consistent and unequivocal testimonies.
      • The fact that the victim and her family willingly went through the ordeal of a public trial supports the truthfulness of the allegations.
      • Jurisprudence clearly states that rape may be committed even without vaginal lacerations or a ruptured hymen.
    • The appellate court indicated that the findings on the credibility of witnesses merit great respect and are not subject to disturbance unless there is a palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.

Issues:

  • Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses
    • Whether the victim’s and her family’s testimonies were sufficiently credible and reliable to support a conviction.
    • Whether the trial court erred in giving full credence to these testimonies despite differing medical findings.
  • Probative Value of the Medical Certificate
    • The significance and weight of the medical examination conducted 14 days after the incident, which reported an intact hymen.
    • Whether reliance on the medical certificate should have altered the reconstruction of the events as testified.
  • Sufficiency of Evidence to Convict Beyond Reasonable Doubt
    • Whether the prosecution proved statutory rape against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the conflicting accounts.
    • Whether the appellant’s defense of denial and an alibi was effectively countered by the positive identification and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.