G.R. No. 124391 - People vs. Yparraguire

On March 24, 1994, at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening, the accused, Elmer Yparraguirre (alias “Lalo”), entered the room of Charmelita D. Ruina at her mother's store located in the Public Market at Carrascal, Surigao del Sur.
The complainant, Charmelita, was an invalid suffering from mental retardation and living with her mother. Her room’s door was left unlocked as her mother had gone to work at the neighboring store.
Upon entry, the accused undressed himself and proceeded to approach the complainant while she was apparently awake.

The accused caressed and sucked the complainant’s breasts.
When the victim shouted for help, the accused ordered her to remain silent.
In response to her limited resistance, he physically assaulted her by boxing her (hitting her) and slapping her on the face.
He proceeded to remove her panty, climbed on top of her, and forcefully inserted his manhood into her most private part, causing her pain.
After committing the rape, he left the room, only to return the following morning to the store and tender an apology as well as a promise not to repeat his actions.

The victim’s testimony, both in her vernacular deposition and in her earlier affidavit, provided a detailed account of the assault.
The Medical Certificate issued on March 26, 1994, by Dr. Carlo P. Altrecha documented:

Physical injuries on the breasts (abrasions and contusions) and on the right armpit area.
Genital findings including congested, slightly swollen labia minora and a non-intact hymen.
A vaginal smear that did not detect spermatozoa.

The medical and testimonial evidence corroborated each other, establishing the presence of physical injuries consistent with the use of force.

The criminal prosecution was initiated through a complaint that, although signed and filed by the chief of police, satisfied the condition precedent under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code as implemented by Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The rule mandates that crimes such as rape be prosecuted upon a complaint by the offended party or her guardians, and in this case, the underlying intent for redress by the victim (or her family) was clearly manifested.
The defense later argued that jurisdiction was lacking because the complaint was not filed directly by the victim; however, the court held that the complaint merely commences the prosecutory proceeding and does not itself confer jurisdiction.

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction when the complaint initiating the prosecution was signed and filed by the chief of police rather than directly by the complainant.
Whether the requirements of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure were properly satisfied despite the procedural irregularity cited by the appellant.

Whether the physical evidence (e.g., boxing, slapping, forcible insertion) and the victim’s inability to resist due to her mental and physical incapacities collectively fulfill the elements constituting rape.
Whether the victim’s reaction and testimony, including her inability to mount physical resistance because of her physical limitations, are sufficient to prove the use of force and intimidation necessary for a conviction.

Whether the accused’s act of apologizing and asking for forgiveness immediately after the incident can serve as a mitigating factor or imply a compromise that might affect his criminal liability.