G.R. No. 206725 - People vs. Gervero

The case involves the People of the Philippines as the prosecuting party and Reynaldo PoAado as the accused.
Reynaldo PoAado was charged with three counts of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
The information in the three separate criminal cases specified that the accused had raped his stepdaughter, Merinor Bombales, on three different occasions.

The information stated that around 7:00 in the evening, in Sitio Tibangray, Brgy. Tinampo, Ligao, the accused, with a lewd design, undressed and sexually assaulted Merinor Bombales, who was 12 years old at that time.

The accused, again around 7:00 in the evening at the same location, raped Merinor by entering her room while she was alone studying, undressing her, and carrying out the sexual assault using force and intimidation.

On this occasion, the accused entered Merinor’s room, undressed her, forced her to lie on the bed, tied her hands and feet with an abaca rope, and repeatedly engaged in the sexual act despite her resistance.

Merinor Bombales, a grade six pupil known by the nickname “Marilou,” testified in detail about each sexual assault.

She described the incidents with clarity, including the use of physical force (covering of her mouth, tying of limbs, dragging her on a rough floor) and the presence of fear and coercion.

Medical evidence provided by Dr. Lea Remonte documented physical findings such as:

A superficial hymenal laceration at a specific position;
The ability to admit two fingers easily into the vagina; and
The presence of “whitish fluid” considered to be artifacts or debris, rather than normal vaginal discharge.

Despite the absence of evidentiary signs like hematomas or abrasions in some areas, the overall findings supported the occurrence of sexual abuse.

The complainant, Merinor, is the stepdaughter of the accused, having been cared for by him after her mother, Librada Rectin, began living with him following her separation from her biological father, Marcelino Bombales.
Details of the household were presented, including the presence of other family members at various times; however, during the incidents the victim was largely isolated in her room.
The familial relationship and the trust the victim had in the accused contributed to the gravity of the abuse, as well as to her later reluctance to report the incidents.

The accused pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on January 29, 1997.
His account included an allegation that he was elsewhere during the first incident and that during the other occasions the entire family was present, thereby disputing the possibility of rape.
The accused also attempted to shift blame by implicating Merinor’s brother, Danilo, as the actual perpetrator.
Testimonies of family members (including the accused’s father, Artemio PoAado, and his son, Hadji PoAado) were presented to corroborate his version of events, though they were found to be self-serving and less credible compared to the consistent account of the victim.

After a joint trial, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt in all three counts based on the victim’s evidence and supporting testimonies.
In its ruling, the trial court sentenced the accused to death in each criminal case and ordered him to indemnify the victim with a sum of P150,000.00, alongside the payment of costs.
The trial court’s detailed narrative emphasized the victim’s credibility, the harrowing nature of the events, and the abuse of the trust inherent in family relationships.

The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review due to the imposition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659.
The accused’s appeal rested on two main submissions:

That the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt; and
That the imposition of the death penalty was improper, partly on the ground that the information failed to accurately allege the specific relationship between him and the victim, thus depriving the prosecution of the qualifying statutory circumstances necessary for the death penalty.

Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the victim’s testimony and corroborative evidence.
The issue of whether the testimony of a young, traumatized victim, who underwent a public trial with familial exposure and subsequent humiliation, could reliably establish the commission of rape.

Whether the trial court committed error by imposing the death penalty on the accused given the technical defect in the information regarding the relationship between the victim and the accused.
Whether the failure to state, with particularity, the attendant circumstances (specifically the nature of the relationship) under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, nullifies the imposition of the death penalty and necessitates its reduction to reclusion perpetua.
Whether the constitutional arguments regarding the equal protection clause affecting the death penalty are tenable in the present circumstances.