PEOPLE vs GERONES
G.R. No. 91116. January 24, 1991
Evidence; Witnesses; The trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses’ testimonies is
accorded great respect on appeal.—The case of People v. Rizo, G.R. No. 86743, August 30, 1990 places
the determination of the competency of witnesses to testify in the hands of the trial court. As
repeatedly held by this Court, the factual findings of the trial court as to the guilt of the accused,
particularly the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses’ testimonies are accorded
great respect on appeal in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge who
has the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of
the witnesses as they present the same.
Same; Same; The private complainant who is a mental retardate but has the ability to make her
perceptions known to others, is a competent witness.—Moreover, while the psychiatry report states
that the victim cannot be expected to be a capable witness, at the same time it admitted that Liliosa can
comprehend the nature of her acts under a limited extent. The same report concludes that she is
verbally productive although she talks in incomplete sentences at times. What is required by the rules
merely is that the witness is able to make her perception known to others. Thus, Rule 130, Sec. 20 of the
Rules of Court states: “Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive,
and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. xxx” Considering the
foregoing, we agree with the trial court that Liliosa Gargantilla is a competent witness.
FACTS:
After finding the existence of probable cause, an information was filed with the RTC- Leyte for the rape
of Liliosa Gargantilla, a mental retardate, against Calixto Raga alias "Calix" and Leonardo
Gerones alias "Nanding or Narding. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. But the trial
court convicted both defendants guilty for the offense charged. Both the accused appealed before the
SC. However, only accused Gerones filed his brief.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a mentally incompetent’s testimony may be given credence.
RULING:
YES. The Court held that it is a rule in rape cases that sexual intercourse with a woman who is deprived
of reason constitutes rape. This is because while, as in this case, the woman may be 22 years old, her
mental capacity may be that of a nine or ten year old child. Hence, she is incapable of giving consent to
the sexual intercourse The necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt of force or intimidation having
been applied is absent.
That, the accused-appellant’s contention that the complaint did not give jurisdiction to the trial court
the same having been signed by a mentally incompetent woman does not hold water. Because initially,
a complaint was filed with the barangay captain by Francisco Gargantilla, the victim's father. Rule 110,
Section 5 also provides that in the case of a deceased or incapacitated person, the State may initiate the
criminal action in her behalf. The information filed by the Provincial Prosecutor, the complaint initiated
by the father, and the complaint filed by the offended party herself sufficiently confer jurisdiction on the
trial court.
The Court concurred with the trial court’s finding that per record, the victim managed to communicate
her ordeal to the court clearly and consistently. That, even Liliosa have the mental capacity of a ten year
old, she can adequately narrate facts which show that she has been raped. Thus, she is a competent
witness. That, there is likewise no reason to doubt her credibility as she had no motive to testify against
the accused That, no motive can be ascribed to complainant or to her father and step-mother other
than a desire for justice and redress for a terrible wrong. And that, she was a poor barrio girl with the
mental capacity of a 10-year old, inexperienced to the ways of the world. Thus, it is highly improbable
that she would fabricate matters and impute the crime unless it was true. The victim was even able to
testify that only one actually had sexual intercourse with her and that was the blind, man while the
other man who was not blind held her and pointed a knife at her while the former was raping her.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby affirms the judgment of the court a quo by finding the accused guilty of
the crime of rape and, therefore, must suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua but with the
modification that the accused must indemnify the heirs of the late Liliosa Gargantilla, as held in recent
cases, the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00).
