Mistaken identity

Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense of rape can only be prosecuted upon the complaint filed by the victim, her parents, grandparents, or guardian. Otherwise the case may be dismissed by the court for lack of jurisdiction. But if the victim dies and her guardian, who filed a complaint for rape later on, denies being the guardian, will the court lose jurisdiction to try the case? This is the issue resolved in this case of Poldo and Gardo.

The case stemmed from a drowning incident witnessed by Nestor, a coffee vendor who was on his way to a nearby river to answer the call of nature. Upon reaching the place, he saw a girl drowning in the river. So, he immediately jumped and brought her to the riverbank and   resuscitated her by artificial respiration. While doing so, a mobile patrol car arrived after being informed about the drowning incident.

At the police station, a policeman asked the girl why she jumped and she replied that was raped by two men pointing to Gardo as one of them but the latter just kept quiet. Afterwards, the girl was brought by an ambulance to the nearest hospital where she died the following afternoon due to respiratory failure. The girl was also found positive for several sperm cells. It appears that the girl died as a result of her attempt to commit suicide and no one claimed her body which was kept in the morgue for quite sometime.

In the meantime the informant identified as Poldo, was investigated at the police station where he admitted having sexual intercourse with the victim but also implicated Gardo who allegedly used force upon the girl as she fought with her wooden shoes. When arrested and investigated, Gardo also admitted having raped the girl in a statement which he duly signed.

Later on, a woman by the name of Leona came along inquiring about her niece named Lita who disappeared and had been missing. So she was brought to the morgue where she and her brother examined the girl’s cadaver and confirmed that it was Lita. After claiming the she was the guardian of the victim, Leona was taken to the Fiscal’s Office to sign the complaint for rape against Poldo and Gardo although in the complaint, the victim’s name was “Marta.” 

After the prosecution has rested its case however, Leona testified that she made a mistake in identifying the cadaver as that of her missing niece Lita because it turned out that Lita was still alive.

And so when the lower court found both Poldo and Gardo guilty of rape, Gardo still appealed the decision claiming that the lower court has no jurisdiction to render the decision since Leona was not the guardian of the victim; thus the complaint for rape was not filed in accordance with Article 344 of the RPC. Was Gardo corrected?

Gardo is not correct according to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC ruled that there is no failure of compliance with Article 344 because Leona has already 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. Furthermore, according to the lower court, her testimony that she committed a mistake in identifying the victim is unbelievable because of apparent discrepancies and her wavering attitude. Besides, assuming that Leona was misled by the striking similarities in the facial and other features of the deceased and her niece Lita, all of which might have misled her as to the real identity of the victim, she could not have been mistaken as to the names because her niece is Lita while the victim was named Marta. And if Leona was not really sure of the identity she should not have subscribed to the complaint as guardian of her own accord and free will. So the complaint is still sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court (People vs.Ponelas and Enorio, G.R. L-10853, May 19, 1959).

*   *   *

Email: [email protected]