Title
People vs. Dela Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 135022
Decision Date
Jul 11, 2002
Bienvenido Dela Cruz convicted of raping a mentally deficient woman; court upheld credibility of victim's testimony despite mental condition, supported by medical evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135022)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Alleged substantive acts: 3 and 4 July 1996 (dates of the two alleged rapes).
Complaint filed: 5 July 1996 (signed by Jonalyn with assistance from her aunt).
Psychiatric examination of Jonalyn: 12 July 1996.
Medico-legal examination: 8 July 1996.
Arraignment: 14 October 1996 (accused pleaded not guilty).
Trial court decision convicting the accused on one information: 3 April 1998.
Note on constitutional basis: because the appellate decision was rendered after 1990, the analysis and decision apply the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Applicable Law and Governing Rules

Primary substantive and procedural provisions invoked: Article 344, Revised Penal Code (pre-amendment definition and prosecutorial requirements for rape); Section 5, Rule 110, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (who may prosecute); Section 10(c), Rule 132, Rules on Evidence (allowance of leading questions where witness is of feeble mind or child); Section 16, Rule 132, Rules on Evidence (refreshing recollection); Section 20, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence (competency of witnesses). Penalty reference: Article 335, Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659 (reclusion perpetua as appropriate for simple rape).

Charge and Information Before the Trial Court

Two informations were filed charging Bienvenido with rape based on Jonalyn’s complaint. The information relevant to this appeal charged that on or about 3 July 1996 the accused, with lewd design, had carnal knowledge of Jonalyn, a mentally deficient female, against her will and without consent. The cases were consolidated for joint trial. The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment.

Pretrial Psychiatric Evaluation and Trial Court Ruling on Examination

Upon initial presentation of Jonalyn as the first witness, the prosecution sought a psychiatric examination to determine her mental and psychological capacity to testify and, if warranted, to permit the use of leading questions. The defense opposed that approach. The trial court permitted direct examination initially and, after observing Jonalyn’s difficulty expressing herself, suspended proceedings to allow consultation and ultimately accepted expert testimony from Dr. Cecilia Tuazon, who examined Jonalyn and found moderate mental retardation with a mental age of about eight years yet capable of making perceptions known with repeated prompting.

Order Allowing Leading Questions and Rationale

Following Dr. Tuazon’s report, the trial court issued an order permitting leading questions under Section 10(c), Rule 132 (the exception for witnesses who are ignorant, children of tender years, or of feeble mind). The trial court’s ruling recognized that Jonalyn’s cognitive limitations made repeated and carefully phrased leading questions necessary to elicit intelligible testimony in the interest of justice.

Victim’s Testimony and Identification of the Accused

Under the court’s allowance, Jonalyn testified, identifying her signature on her sworn statement and the accused in court. She testified that the accused raped her twice inside a house in Barangay Gatbuca, Calumpit, Bulacan, described that he placed himself on top of her and inserted his private part into her womanhood, and specified the scene (a wooden bed or “papag”). Her responses were simple and sometimes required prompting; on one occasion, after initial uncertainty, she stated that “his private part was inserted in my private part,” thereby describing penetration.

Medico-legal Evidence Corroborating Penetration

Dr. Edgardo Gueco’s medico-legal examination, performed on 8 July 1996, documented deep fresh and healing lacerations of the hymen at 3, 8 and 11 o’clock positions. He opined that the lacerations were sustained about a week prior to examination, consistent with the timing of the alleged rapes. The medico-legal report thus provided physical corroboration of forcible defloration/penetration.

Testimony of Relative Regarding Filing and Expenses

Jonalyn’s aunt, Carmelita Borja, testified that she accompanied Jonalyn to the PNP to lodge the complaint on 5 July 1996 along with Jonalyn’s mother and a barangay official. She also testified as to expenses incurred by the family amounting to P30,000 in pursuing the complaint.

Defense Motions: Demurrer to Evidence and Challenges to Competency and Jurisdiction

After the prosecution rested, the defense obtained leave to file a Demurrer to Evidence, asserting (a) lack of jurisdiction because the complaint was fatally defective—arguing that Jonalyn, due to mental deficiency, lacked capacity to sign the complaint and that assistance by the aunt did not cure the defect under Article 344; and (b) insufficiency of evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence. The defense further attacked Jonalyn’s competency and alleged that her testimony was coached, rehearsed, and elicited mainly through leading questions that amounted to putting words into her mouth.

Accused’s Motion for Judgment and Trial Court Submission

The accused later filed a Motion for Judgment stating his decision, in consultation with counsel and family, to submit the case for decision without presenting evidence. The trial court considered the case submitted and, in its joint decision, convicted Bienvenido on Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96 (the matter at bar) for rape and acquitted him on the other consolidated information for insufficiency of evidence.

Trial Court Findings and Sentencing

The trial court found Jonalyn’s testimony, though not detailed, to be candid and consistent with the demeanour and capacities of a person with the mental age of an eight-year-old. It credited her identification of the accused and her account of the rape on 3 July 1996. The court also weighed the medico-legal evidence corroborating penetration and considered the accused’s decision not to present evidence. It sentenced Bienvenido to reclusion perpetua and awarded civil indemnity of P60,000 to the victim (later modified on appeal).

Issues Raised on Appeal

Bienvenido raised several principal assignments of error on appeal: (1) that the complaint was fatally defective and thus the trial court lacked jurisdiction; (2) that Jonalyn was incompetent to file the complaint and incompetent as a witness; (3) that her testimony was the product of leading questions, coaching and rehearsed statements which amounted to mere confirmations of prepared conclusions by the prosecution; and (4) that the conviction in one consolidated case but acquittal in the other was inconsistent given the common evidence, warranting reversal.

Appellee’s (OSG) Response on Appeal

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the complaint and information were valid, that Jonalyn—despite mental retardation—was competent both to file the complaint and to testify, and that the allowance of leading questions was justified and confined to extracting factual testimony consistent with her capacity. The OSG emphasized corroboration by medical evidence and maintained that the conviction should stand (and suggested the accused could legitimately have been convicted for two counts given Jonalyn’s testimony that she was raped twice).

Appellate Court Analysis — Validity of Complaint and Jurisdiction

The appellate court held that the complaint complied with Article 344 and Rule 110 Sec. 5 as they existed at the time of the offences. It emphasized precedent that the complaint starts the prosecutory proceeding but does not itself confer judicial jurisdiction; jurisdiction derives from the Judiciary Law. The court reasoned that an offended party who is mentally minor in capacity (here, functioning with the mental age of an 8-year-old) may nonetheless initiate the prosecution in her own name; the assistance of relatives was superfluous. Because the complaint was valid on its face and the accused himself acknowledged its sufficiency by not moving to quash, the trial court’s cognizance was proper.

Appellate Court Analysis — Competency of the Victim as Witness

The court applied the rule

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms