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 Summary (G.R. No. 116729)

Facts of the Case

On January 22, 1992, at approximately 7:15 PM, Jennifer Soriano was en route to a neighbor's house to watch television. While near the residence of Belen Casandig, she was intercepted by Marlon Lerio, who forcefully covered her mouth, carried her to a nearby area with piles of cogon grass, and sexually assaulted her. Despite her attempts to escape, she was assaulted until the noise of her parents calling her name prompted Lerio to release her. Evidence collected included a headband belonging to the victim and testimonies from local authorities who investigated the matter shortly after it occurred.

Charges and Trial Proceedings

On June 10, 1992, Lerio was charged with statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution presented witnesses including the barangay captain, the victim’s mother, the victim herself, and a health officer. The defense presented only Lerio, who claimed to have spent the evening with relatives and denied any sexual encounter, suggesting that the charges arose from his innocent kiss on the victim.

Decision of the Trial Court

On July 7, 1994, the trial court convicted Marlon Lerio of statutory rape and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, along with ordering him to pay the victim P50,000.00 in moral damages. The court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and substantial, particularly the victim’s unwavering account of the events.

Appellant's Arguments

In his appeal, Lerio contended that the trial court erred in accepting the prosecution's evidence as credible, claiming inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence to corroborate the testimony of assault. He emphasized the medical findings, which showed no physical trauma, arguing that this undermined the prosecution's assertion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Prosecution's Counterarguments

The Office of the Solicitor General defended the trial court's decision, arguing that legal precedent allows for a conviction of rape without physical evidence such as hymenal rupture. Furthermore, they asserted that the integrity of the victim’s testimony should not be undermined simply due to the absence of anatomical damage and highlighted the societal stigma that would accompany a false allegation of such a serious crime.

Analysis of Credibility and Legal Standards

The appellate court acknowledged the trial court’s discretion in assessing witness credibility, stating that findings from the trial court deserve great respect unless there is clear evidence of mistake or abuse of discretion. The court underscored that a victim’s credible testimony can be sufficient for conviction in rape cases, regardless of additional corroborative evidence. The prosecution's arguments concerning the absence of violent resistance in the case of a minor under twelve years of age were also highlighted, indicating that statutory rape does not necessitate proof of force or intimidation.

Conclusion on Conviction and Penalty

Ultimately,

...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.