EN
BANC
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. L-10853
May
18,
1959
-versus-
SALVADOR
PONELAS
Y INAJE
AND JAVIER
ENORIO
Y HERNANDEZ,
Defendants-Appellants.
D
E C I S I
O N
BAUTISTA
ANGELO, J :
Salvador
Ponelas and Javier
Enorio were charged with Rape before the Court of First Instance of
Manila.
Both were found guilty and sentenced each to suffer an indeterminate
penalty
of from 12 years of prision mayor to 20 years of reclusion
temporal,
to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum
of P5,000.00, and to pay the costs.
Both appealed to the
Court of Appeals. Pending appeal, Ponelas moved to withdraw his appeal
which was granted. And when counsel for the accused gave notice that he
would only raise questions of law, the case was certified to this Court
as required by law.
In the morning of April
25, 1955, Enrique Marcelo, a coffee vendor, went to Estero de la
Quinta,
near Echague, Manila, to answer a call of nature and upon reaching the
place, he saw a woman in the river drowning whereupon he jumped and
brought
the girl to the bank to resuscitate her through artificial respiration.
In the meantime, a mobile patrol arrived after having been informed of
the drowning woman, while Salvador Ponelas informed a police precinct
of
the drowning incident. A policeman questioned the girl and asked her
why
she jumped into the river. She replied that she was raped by two men,
pointing
to Ponelas as one of them who was then around. Ponelas said nothing
when
he was pointed to. The woman was placed in an ambulance and taken to
the
North General Hospital where she died the following afternoon of
"respiratory
failure due to marked congestion and edema of the lungs following
submersion
in water." The vaginal smear taken from her private organ was found
positive
for several complete sperm cells.
Ponelas was taken to
the police station and upon being investigated by a policeman, he
admitted
having sexual intercourse with the woman implicating one Javier Enorio.
He stated that the latter used force upon the girl who fought with her
wooden shoes, and allowed her to jump into the water which she
threatened
to do because Javier thought that she was merely bluffing. His
statements
were taken down in writing and were signed by him. Javier Enorio was
subsequently
arrested and investigated, and he too admitted his participation in the
rape. His statements were also taken down in writing and signed by him.
After the investigation, the two were taken to the scene of the crime
where
they reenacted how they abused and ravished the woman. Photographs of
the
reenactment were taken.
We are only concerned
here with the appeal of Javier Enorio since, as already stated, the
appeal
of his co-accused Ponelas was withdrawn. And in this instance, his
counsel
merely raises the question of whether the trial Court had validly
acquired
jurisdiction over the case in view of the testimony given in Court by
Leonor
Sarabia who signed the complaint that gave rise to the prosecution of
the
two defendants. In this connection, counsel poses the following
question:
since the crime of rape can only be prosecuted upon complaint of the
offended
party, her parents grandparents, or guardian, does failure to comply
with
this requirement affect the jurisdiction of the trial court?
It appears that when
the victim died as a result of her attempt to commit suicide by jumping
into the river, the authorities waited for her relatives to claim for
her
body which was kept in the morgue for sometime. Apparently, the
deceased
had neither parents, grandparents, or relatives. Later, however, one
Leonor
Sarabia came along inquiring about a niece of hers who disappeared, and
so she was taken to the morgue. After the coffin was opened and Leonor
and her brother were allowed to examine the cadaver, they stated that
the
victim was their missing niece and apparently because she made the
authorities
know that she was her guardian, Leonor was taken to the City Fiscal's
office
where she filed the Complaint which gave rise to the prosecution of
Ponelas
and Enorio.
It developed, however,
after the prosecution had rested its case, that Leonor was presented as
witness by the defense and testified that she made a mistake in her
identification
claiming that although the deceased bore a marked similarity to her
missing
niece, she was not the one because her niece turned out to be alive.
According
to Leonor, the name of her missing niece was Amalia Sarabia whereas the
name of the victim was Flora de Cesareo. And in view of this change in
the attitude of Leonor Sarabia, counsel for the defense now contends,
as
he did in the lower court, that the latter lost jurisdiction over the
case,
invoking Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the
offense of rape can only be prosecuted upon complaint filed by the
offended
party, her parents, grandparents or guardian.
While under Article
344 abovementioned the offense of rape can only be prosecuted upon
complaint
filed by the offended party, her parents, grandparents or guardian, and
that unless this requirement is complied with the prosecution may fail
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, we believe however that in this
particular case, it cannot be successfully maintained that there is a
failure
of compliance with this requirement it appearing that Leonor Sarabia
has
filed the complaint as guardian of the victim after satisfying herself
that the one lying in the morgue which she carefully examined and
identified
was really her niece of which she stood as her guardian in the City of
Manila. While Leonor on the witness stand affirmed that she committed a
mistake in the identification of the victim, her testimony was not
however
given credence by the trial court considering her wavering attitude and
the apparent discrepancies noted in her testimony.
Thus, the trial Court
said on this point: "The Court entertains serious doubts on the
sincerity
of the defense witness Leonor Sarabia who claims that she made a
mistake
in the identification of the victim." The Court further commented:
"Assuming
for the sake of argument that there was a marked similarity in the
facial
features of the deceased and Amalia Sarabia and assuming further that
by
sheer coincidence both the victim and Amalia have a scar in their left
legs, all of which might have led Leonor Sarabia into error as to the
real
identity of the victim, Leonor Sarabia could not have been mistaken as
to the names. The victim's name is Flora and Leonor's niece was named
Amalia.
Besides, if Leonor was not really sure of the identity of the victim,
why
did she subscribe to the complaint?" And then the court concluded:
"Leonor
Sarabia of her own accord and free will and as guardian of the victim,
instituted the original action. Such complaint, the Court believes, is
sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance or
try the case on the merits."
The foregoing, being
a finding of fact which is binding upon this Court in view of the fact
that this appeal was taken on purely questions of law, We have no other
alternative that to conclude that Leonor Sarabia filed the present
action
as guardian of the victim and as such Complaint conferred jurisdiction
upon the trial Court to act on the case. The lower Court, therefore,
acted
properly in denying the motion to dismiss filed by the defense.
Wherefore, the decision
appealed from insofar as appellant Javier Enorio is concerned is
affirmed,
with one-half of the costs against said appellant.
Paras, C.J.,
Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ.,
concur. |