Evidence Midterms

7/27/2019 Evidence Midterms

1/102

[G.R. No. 129057. January 22, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BILLY DE LEON, DOMINADOR DE LEON andLEOPOLDO DE LEON, accused.

DOMINADOR DE LEON and LEOPOLDO DE LEON, accused-appellants.

D E C I S I O N

DE LEON, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision[1]dated January 30, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 38, Lingayen, Pangasinan, in Criminal Case No. L-5499, finding accused-appellantsLeopoldo and Dominador, both surnamed de Leon, guilty of murder and sentencing them tosuffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of thedeceased victim, Ignacio Jimenez, the sum of P15,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 ascompensatory damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages, as indemnity plus the cost of thesuits.

The record shows that on July 23, 1996, Assistant City Prosecutor (on detail) Abraham L.Ramos II filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan an Information charging thebrothers, Billy, Dominador and Leopoldo, all surnamed de Leon, with murder, allegedlycommitted as follows:

That on or about the 13th day of June 1996 in the afternoon, in barangay Lomboy, Municipality

of Binmaley, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this HonorableCourt, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another,armed with a bladed instrument, with treachery and used of superior strength and intent to kill,did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab Ignacio Jimenez,inflicting upon him the following:

- multiple stab wounds chest

- multiple hacked wound head with fracture

which injuries directly caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the saidIgnacio Jimenez.

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[2]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn1


2/102

Only appellants Leopoldo and Dominador de Leon were brought to trial inasmuch as co-accused Billy de Leon evaded arrest. Upon being duly arraigned, Leopoldo and Dominador

pleaded Not Guilty.[3]

The prosecutions case relied primarily on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, Chito

(Tito) Jimenez and Annaluz Hilarion, who claimed to have personally witnessed the killing aswell as on the post-mortem examination and findings of Dr. Nicanor Arzadon who testifiedthereon.

Chito Jimenez, son of the victim, Ignacio Jimenez, testified that on June 13, 1996 at around

3:00 oclock in the afternoon, while watching a game of pool beside the house of Romy Castroin Barangay Lomboy, Binmaley, Pangasinan, he saw accused Billy de Leon struck his father,Ignacio with a cap. Chito called the attention of Billy to the fact that his father was already

old. Instead of heeding Chitos request, Billy boxed him on the stomach, forcing Chito toretaliate, thus a fistfight ensued. Ignacio pacified Billy and Chito, after which Ignacio and Billyleft while Chito remained in the said place. Ten (10) minutes later, Billy returned, andimmediately boxed and slapped Chito several times and drew a 10-inch long bolo. Chito rantowards the southern direction and met his father, Ignacio who came out of theirhouse. While he was 10 meters away from his father, he stopped and saw Billy accosting andstabbing his father on the stomach several times. At that very instant, Leopoldo andDominador arrived, and thereupon Leopoldo held the arms of his father, Ignacio, whileDominador stabbed the back portion of Ignacios head. Thereafter, the three (3) brothers ranaway while the victim, Ignacio, walked towards his house and once near Chito, told his son tobring him to the hospital. Chito called Annaluz Hilarion who was five (5) meters away from the

incident, to accompany them to the hospital. The victim was brought to the PangasinanProvincial Hospital in Dagupan City where he later expired.[4]

Annaluz Hilarion corroborated the testimony of Chito Jimenez on some materialpoints. Annaluz testified that at around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon of June 13, 1996 whileshe was resting in their house, she heard a startling commotion outside theirhouse. Immediately, she stood up and looked through the window and saw Chito runningsouthward to their house, and being chased by Billy who was followed by Leopoldo andDominador. She also saw Chitos father, Ignacio, walking towards the oppositedirection. When the de Leon brothers met Ignacio, they accosted the latter. Billy stabbedIgnacio on the stomach and then Leopoldo held the arms of Ignacio while Dominador took histurn in stabbing the said victim at the back of his head. Thereafter, Billy continued stabbingIgnacio on the right side of the stomach several times, and then the said de Leon brothers ranaway. Ignacio struggled toward the direction of his house, but he fell down and was not able to

reach the same. Together with Chito, they brought the victim to the Pangasinan ProvincialHospital in Dagupan City but expired while being treated.[5]Annaluz likewise stated that neitherChito nor Ignacio was holding a stone or any weapon at the time she saw them.[6]

Nicanor Arzadon, resident physician of the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital[7]at DagupanCity testified on the injuries sustained by Ignacio and the cause of his death. He testified thathe conducted an autopsy of the victim several hours after the latters death and thereafter
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn3


3/102

prepared an autopsy report. In his post-mortem examination,[8]he observed the followingwounds sustained and the cause of death of the victim, thus:

1. Incised wound 7 cm. angle of mandible (L) located on the left face;

2. Hacked wound 8 cm. Temporal area (L) on the left side of the head;

3. Stab wound 3 cm. (L) midaxillary line, level of the 7th ICS, penetrating, perforatingmiddle portion lower lobe (L) lung;

4. Stab wound 4 cm., 8th ICS, ant. Axillary line, penetrating, lacerating diaphragm,penetrating, perforating greater curvature of stomach;

5. Stab wound 4 cm. mid. Hypochondria area, (L) penetrating, perforating lessercurvature;

6. Stab wound, 3 cm. Epigastric area (L) penetrating, perforating body of stomach,thru and thru, penetrating, lacerating body of pancreas;

7. Stab wound 7 cm. Intercostal space, mid-clavicular line (R) non-penetrating, rightside below right nipple;

8. Stab wound 3 cm. Intercostal space, midclavicular line (R) penetrating laceratinglower lobe (R) liver;

9. Hacked wound, 6 cm. parietal area;

10. Massive intra-abdominal bleeding.

CAUSE OF DEATH: Hypovolemia 2o to multiple stab wound.

Dr. Nicanor Arzadon declared that a sharp bladed instrument caused the said wounds,and based on the sizes of the wounds, it is likely possible that two (2) or more kinds ofweapons were used in hacking or stabbing the victim.[9]

Rita Jimenez, wife of victim Ignacio, testified regarding the expenses incurred by the familyin connection with her husbands death, as follows: for the 9 days vigil, P4,500.00; for coffinand funeral services, P7,500.00; for the autopsy examination, P1,000.00; for wreath, P1,000.00;for the last night vigil, P3,500.00; for food and fish, P2,000.00; for church rites, P600.00; for thenovena, P500.00; and for the lompos, P1,500.00.[10]

On their part, both accused-appellants Leopoldo and Dominador invoked the defense ofdenial and alibi. They claimed that in the afternoon of June 13, 1996, they went to Manat,Binmaley upon the invitation of Modesto Reyes, to harvest fish in the latters fishpen. Theyarrived at around 1:00 oclock in the afternoon and left the said place at around 3:00 oclock in

the afternoon of the same day. At around 4:00 oclock, they were already home. Mercedes,wife of Leopoldo, informed them that their brother, Billy, stabbed Ignacio. Mercedes toldLeopoldo not to go out of the house as Ignacios sons might retaliate against them. When thepolicemen arrived, Leopoldo and Dominador were invited to the police station. After somequestioning by SPO4 Crispin Cancino, they were asked to go out of the room and made to sign
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn8


4/102


5/102

overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result ofthe case.[12]No cogent reasons exist to disturb the factual findings of the trial court, moreparticularly on its assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

The trial court correctly ascertained that the testimonies of the prosecution witnessesChito and Annaluz clearly and adequately proved how the killing happened and the extent ofaccused-appellants participation in that incident. Both witnesses testified in a straightforward,clear and positive manner and the court finds no valid and plausible reason to discredit thetruth and veracity of their narration. As recounted by Annaluz in her testimony

ATTY. BASBAS

Will you kindly tell the Honorable Court what was that incident that called yourattention, Madam Witness?

A They said that there is trouble, sir.

Q What, if any, did you do when you heard the word in Pangasinan dialect, gulo, which

means trouble?

A I stood up and looked out the window, sir.

Q What, if any, did you see when you looked out the window?

A I saw Chito Jimenez running, then, Ignacio Jimenez passed by, sir.

COURT

Passed by your house?

A Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASBAS

To what direction was Chito Jimenez proceeding when you saw him running?

A Towards their house, south direction, sir.

Q How about Ignacio Jimenez?

A While Ignacio Jimenez was running towards the north direction, sir.

Q By the way, do you know the relation between Ignacio Jimenez and Chito Jimenez?

A They are father and son, sir.

Q What happened next after you saw Chito Jimenez running towards their house going tosouthern direction and Ignacio Jimenez on the northern direction?

A Billy de Leon, Dominador de Leon and Leopoldo de Leon were also running, sir.

Q To what direction were [sic] Billy de Leon, Dominador de Leon and Leopoldo deLeon proceedings when you saw them running?

A They were chasing Chito Jimenez, sir, going south.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn12


6/102

Q What happened next after you saw Billy de Leon, Dominador de Leon and Leopoldo deLeon running and chasing Chito Jimenez?

A They saw Ignacio Jimenez and they accosted him, sir.

Q When you said they accosted him, to whom are you referring to as accosted?

A Ignacio Jimenez, sir.

Q After Ignacio Jimenez was accosted by the three (3) Billy de Leon,Dominador de Leon and Leopoldo de Leon, what happened next?

A They stabbed him, sir.

Q Do you know who among the three (3) stabbed Ignacio Jimenez?

A First, it was Billy de Leon who stabbed Ignacio Jimenez while Leopoldo de Leon heldIgnacio Jimenez, sir.

Q After Leopoldo de Leon held Ignacio Jimenez, what happened next?

A Then, Dominador de Leon stabbed Ignacio Jimenez on his head, sir. (Witness pointingthe back top of the head).

Q Will you kindly stand up, Madam witness, and demonstrate before this Honorable Courthow did Leopoldo de Leon hold Ignacio Jimenez?

A Like this, sir (Witness place herself behind with both arms holding the shoulder. Thecourt interpreter represents the victim in the demonstration through the armpit).

Q What happened next after Dominador de Leon stabbed Ignacio Jimenez at the back ofhis head?

A Then, Billy de Leon kept on stabbing the victim, sir.

Q By the way, Madam Witness, you mentioned a while ago that Billy de Leon first stabbed

Ignacio Jimenez, my question, what part of the body of Ignacio Jimenez was hit by Billyde Leon when he was first stabbed by Billy de Leon?

A On his stomach, sir (Witness pointing to the right side of his stomach).

Q And when you said that Billy de Leon continued stabbing Ignacio Jimenez after he wasstabbed by Dominador de Leon at the back of his head, what part or parts of the body ofIgnacio Jimenez was hit by Billy de Leon?

A On the abdomen, sir.

Q What happened next after Billy de Leon stabbed Ignacio Jimenez in the abdomen?

A The three (3) ran away, sir.[13]

On cross-examination, Annaluz categorically stated that:

ATTY. CAMPOS


7/102


8/102

A Before he held Ignacio Jimenez on the shoulders, he threw his bolo, sir.

Q Were you able to find this bolo which was thrown by Leopoldo de Leon?

A No more, sir.

Q You saw where Leopoldo de Leon threw the bolo?

A At the time they ran away towards their house, they picked up the bolo and thenbrought with them, sir.[14]

Likewise, Chito Jimenez on cross-examination declared that:

ATTY. CAMPOS

The moment you met your father along your way when you were running, the two (2)other accused, Leopoldo de Leon and Dominador de Leon, were not yet around?

A After I met my father, then, my father met Billy de Leon andthen the two (2) Dominador and Leopoldo de Leon, appeared sir.

Q From what direction did these two (2) other accused, Leopoldo de Leon and Dominadorde Leon, come from, Mr. Witness?

A They came from their house, sir.

Q By the way, how far is the house of Leopoldo de Leon from that place where you metyour father when you were running?

A Just beyond the concrete fence, about fifteen (15) meters from the fence of the court

building, sir.

Q And how about the house of Dominador de Leon in relation to that place where you metyour father along your way when you were running?

A The same distance, sir.

Q According to you, you were running so fast and you ran as fast as you could towardsyour house, you never look back when you were running?

A I looked back, sir.

Q How could that be that you recognized these two (2) other accused, Leopoldo de Leonand Dominador de Leon, when you were running fast?

A I stopped, sir.

Q When you reached your house, am I correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you stayed inside your house upon reaching your house, is that correct?

A I did not proceed home but I stopped besides the house of Annaluz, sir.


9/102

Q And you are now changing your testimony when you said a while ago that you stoppedrunning upon reaching home?

A Yes, sir, is not true.

Q The truth now is that, you where, Mr. Witness?

A Ten (10) meters away from the place of stabbing, sir.

Q Why did you stop, Mr. Witness?

A Because Billy de Leon accosted my father and then these two (2) brothers arrived, sir.

Q Did you really see how Billy de Leon accosted your father?

A Yes, sir.

Q When your father was accosted by Billy de Leon, you did not notice Leopoldo de Leonand Dominador de Leon around?

A It was then that the two (2) arrived, sir.

Q And the moment Billy de Leon accosted your father, he stabbed your father?

A Yes, sir.

Q Comes these two (2) other accused, first, Leopoldo de Leon held the arms of yourfather, then Dominador de Leon whom you alleged to have also stabbed your father?

A Yes, sir.

Q And when these were happening you were about ten (10) meters away from the four(4)?

A Yes, sir.

Q And while Ignacio Jimenez or your father was being handled by the three (3)accused, you did not do anything just watched, am I correct?

A Yes, sir. I watched them because I got frightened, sir.

Q You did not come to the aid of your father?

A No, sir.

Q Neither that you called for help from other persons who were around?

A No, sir.

Q But there were other persons around, am I correct?

A I did not notice, sir.

Q And so, your attention was only focused on what was happening to your father?

A Yes, sir.[15]


10/102

In an attempt to discredit the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellants contend that theirtestimonies are contradictory in that while Annaluz testified that accused-appellants Leopoldoand Dominador ran with Billy in chasing Chito, prosecution witness Chito, on the other hand,declared that Leopoldo and Dominador appeared only when his father, Ignacio, was beingaccosted by Billy. The inconsistencies, if any, were more imaginary than real. Besides, the

inconsistencies, if any, in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses refer only to minor detailsand collateral matters which do not affect the substance, veracity, and weight of theirtestimony. They even tended to strengthen rather than weakened, the credibility of the

witnesses as they negate any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[16]Furthermore, the courtcannot and should not expect the testimonies of different witnesses to be completely identicaland to coincide with each other for not all persons who witnessed an incident are impressed inthe same manner; and it is only natural that, in relating their impressions, they might disagreeon some minor details.

The credibility of the prosecution witnesses is not affected by their relationship with thedeceased. The fact that witness Chito is the son of the victim while Annaluzs mo ther-in-law is

the second cousin of the wife of the victim is of no consequence since mere relationship withthe victim does not necessarily tarnish the testimony of a witness. When there is no showing ofimproper motive on the part of the witness in testifying against the accused, her relationshipwith the victim does not render her testimony less worthy of full faith and credence.[17]In fact,relationship itself could even strengthen credibility in a particular case, for it is highly unnaturalfor an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. The earnestdesire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience

and prudence to blame one who is innocent of the crime.[18]

Likewise, as shown by the medical examination, the victim sustained nine (9) stabwounds. Dr. Arzadon who conducted the post mortem examination of the victim opined that

two (2) different weapons could have caused the wounds of the victim. He testified:

COURT

Now, considering the two possibilities that it could be one weapon or more than twoweapons, what is the greater possibility?

A I could not tell, sir.

Q You could not tell despite the fact that there are different sizes as you say about thelength?

A In my opinion, it is more than two, sir.

Q So, the greater possibility is more than two weapons?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, considering also the nature of the wounds more particularly in their sizes, is itpossible that there are more than one weapon used in inflicting the injuries?

A It is possible, sir.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn16


11/102

Q Is it also possible that there is only one weapon used or not possible?

A It is possible, sir.

Q Considering now the two possibilities, which is more possible considering the sizes ofthe wounds, there are two or more kinds of weapon used or only one kind of weapon?

A More than one kind of weapon, sir.[19]

Billy could not have been solely responsible for all the stab wounds sustained by the victim asthe same were in all probability caused by two (2) different weapons. None of the witnessesfor the defense, more particularly Mercedes de Leon, who testified that Billy was the only one

responsible, declared on the witness stand that Billy used more than one weapon in stabbingthe victim.

On the other hand, accused-appellants defense is a bare and shallow alibi which is a weakdefense. It should be rejected inasmuch as the identities of the accused, as in the case at bar,have been sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the offense.[20]As amply

observed by the trial court, there is no proof of physical impossibility for the accused-appellantsto be present in the scene of the crime. Hence, in the light of the positive identification ofaccused-appellants, by two (2) eyewitnesses, as the perpetrators of the crime, their defense ofdenial and alibi cannot prosper.

On the matter of conspiracy, we have consistently held that conspiracyneed not be shown by direct proof of an agreement by the parties to commit the crime.[21]Itis sufficient that there is a common purpose and design, concerted action and concurrence ofinterests and the minds of the parties meet understandingly so as to bring about a deliberateagreement to commit the offense charged, notwithstanding the absence of a formal

agreement.[22]The credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses Annaluz and Chito disclosed

that after Billy accosted Ignacio, the former stabbed the latter on the stomach one or two (2)times, then Leopoldo held the arms of Ignacio; and then Dominador took his turn in stabbingthe victim at the back of the head. Billy continued stabbing the victim, and then the three (3)accused-brothers left and ran away at the same time. These concurrent actions of accused Billyand accused-appellants Leopoldo and Dominador which revealed a mutual intention anddetermination to kill the victim, Ignacio, indicated conspiracy.

We likewise affirmed the trial courts holding that the killing is qualified to murder by abuseof superior strength, accused-appellants having overpowered the unarmed victim in terms ofnumber and weapons used. To take advantage of superior strength is to purposely useexcessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person

attacked.[23]Although superiority in number is not always superiority in strength, the same isdecidedly true in the case at bar where all the appellants were armed. Furthermore, there wasonly one adversary, an unarmed man who at that time was in no position to defend himself. As

aptly held by the trial court and we quote:

In the case at bar, the evidence on record shows that during the stabbing accused Leopoldo deLeon held the victim while his brothers Billy and Dominador stabbed him several times in the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/129057.htm#_edn19


12/102

different parts of his body. Such being the state of affairs at the time the incidenthappened, the combined strength of the three accused is more superior than the strength ofthe deceased who was much older than the accused. Verily, the stabbing is qualified by thecircumstance of abuse of superior strength, hence the killing is murder as charged in theInformation.

Anent accused-appellants civil liability, the award ofP15,000.00 as actual damages shouldbe deleted inasmuch as there were no receipts presented to evidence the same. The awardof P50,000.00 designated as compensatory damages by the trial court should be properlydenominated as civil indemnity ex delicto. This amount of indemnity is in accordance withjurisprudence and it requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime andproof of the appellants responsibility therefor.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated January 30, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of

Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 38, in Criminal Case No. L-5499 finding appellants Leopoldo deLeon and Dominador de Leon, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing them

to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellantsare ordered to pay, jointly and severally, only the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity exdelicto and P50,000.00 as moral damages, to the heirs of the victim, Ignacio Jimenez. Theaward of P15,000.00, as actual damages, is deleted for lack of proof thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 84450 February 4, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.GLORIA UMALI y AMADO AND SUZETH UMALI y AMADO, defendants-appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for defendants-appellants.

MEDIALDEA, J.:p


13/102

In Criminal Case No. 85-473 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Lucena City, Gloria Umaliand Suzeth Umali were charged for violation of Section 4, Article 1 of the Dangerous Drugs Actof 1972 under an information which reads:

That on or about the 22nd day of April, 1985, at Recto Street, Poblacion,

Municipality of Tiaong, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within thejurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring andconfederating together and mutually helping each other, did then and therewillfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give marijuana or IndianHemp, a prohibited drug to one Francisco Manalo y Arellano, without authorityof law.

Contrary to law. (Rollo, pp. 7-8)

Upon arraignment, Gloria Umali entered a plea of "not, guilty" as accused Suzeth Umaliremained at large. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision on September 9, 1987, thedispositive portion thereof states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused Gloria Umali guiltybeyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 4, Art. 1 (sic) of RA 6425 as amended,otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and is hereby sentencedto suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Accused being a detention prisoneris entitled to enjoy the privileges of her preventive imprisonment. The caseagainst Suzeth Umali, her co-accused in this case is hereby ordered ARCHIVED tobe revived until the arrest of said accused is effected. The warrant of arrestissued against her is hereby ordered reiterated.

SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 30)

Hence, this appeal from the lower court's decision with the following assignment of errors:

I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THEBIASED TESTIMONY OF FRANCISCO MANALO

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE PROSECUTION'SEVIDENCE WHICH WERE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF ACCUSED'SCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE

III


14/102

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT ACCUSED NEVERDISPUTED THE CLAIM THAT SHE WAS THE SOURCE OF MARIJUANA LEAVESFOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF FRANCISCO MANALO ON APRIL 5, 1985 ANDTHAT WHICH WAS USED BY PIERRE PANGAN RESULTING TO THE LATTER'S DRUGDEPENDENCY

IV

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED GLORIA 1, GUILTY OFVIOLATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972 ON THE BASIS OF MERECONJECTURES AND NOT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PROVEN

V

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THEACCUSED DID NOT PASS THE TEST OF MORAL CERTAINTY. (Rollo, p. 49)

The antecedent facts of this case as recounted by the trial court are as follows:

On April 27, 1985 Pierre Pangan a minor was investigated by Pat. FelinoNoguerra for drug dependency and for an alleged crime of robbery. In the courseof the investigation, the policemen discovered that Pierre Pangan was capable ofcommitting crime against property, only if under the influence of drug (sic). AsPierre Pangan is a minor, the police investigators sought the presence of hisparents. Leopoldo Pangan, father of the minor was invited to the policeheadquarters and was informed about the problem of his son. Mr. Pangan asked

the police investigators if something could be done to determine the source ofthe marijuana which has not only socially affected his son, but other minors in

the community. Previous to the case of Pierre Pangan was the case of FranciscoManalo, who was likewise investigated by operatives of the Tiaong, QuezonPolice Department and for which a case for violation of the Dangerous Drug Actwas filed against him, covered by Criminal Case No. 85-516 before Branch 60 ofthe Regional Trial Court of Lucena City. Aside from said case, accused FranciscoManalo was likewise facing other charges such as concealment of deadlyweapon and other crimes against property. Pat. Felino Noguerra went to theTiaong Municipal Jail, and sought the help of Francisco Manalo and told him thesocial and pernicious effect of prohibited drugs like marijuana being peddled tominors of Tiaong, Quezon. Manalo although a detention prisoner was touchedby the appeal made to him by the policeman and agreed to help in theidentification of the source of the marijuana. In return he asked the policeman tohelp him in some cases pending against him. He did not negotiate his case forviolating the dangerous drug act, as he has entered a plea of guilty to thecharged (sic) before the sala of Judge Eriberto Rosario.


15/102

With the consent of Francisco Manalo, Pfc. Sarmiento, Chief of the InvestigationDivision gave him four (4) marked P5.00 bills to buy marijuana from sourcesknown to him. The serial numbers of the money was entered in the policeblotter. The instruction was (sic) for Manalo to bring back the prohibited drugpurchased by him to the police headquarters. Few minutes there after (sic),

Manalo returned with two (2) foils of dried marijuana which lie allegedly boughtfrom the accused Gloria Umali. Thereafter, he was asked by the policeinvestigators to give a statement on the manner and circumstances of how he

was able to purchase two (2) marijuana foils from accused Gloria Umali. With theaffidavit of Francisco Manalo, supported by the two (2) foils of marijuana. theChief of the Investigation Division petitioned the Court for the issuance of asearch warrant as a justification for them to search the house of Gloria Umalilocated at Rector (sic) Street. Poblacion, Tiaong, Quezon. After securing thesame, the police operatives, went to the house of Gloria Umali and served thesearch warrant on her. Confiscated from the person of Gloria Umali were thefour P5.00 bills with serial numbers BA26943, DT388005, CC582000 andEW69873, respectively as reflected in the police blotter. Likewise, present in thefour (4) P5.00 bills were the letters T which were placed by the policeinvestigators to further identify the marked four (4) P5.00 bills. The searched(sic) in the house was made in the presence of Brgy. Capt. Punzalan. The searchresulted in the confiscation of a can of milo, containing sixteen (16) foils of driedmarijuana leaves which were placed in a tupperware and kept in the kitchenwhere rice was being stored. The return of the search warrant reads as follows:

DATE: 22 April 1985

WHAT: "RAID"

WHERE: Residence of Dr. Emiliano Umali

Poblacion, Tiaong, Quezon

WHO: MBRS. OF TIAONG INP

TIME STARTED/ARRIVED AT SAID PLACE:

221410H Apr '85

SERVED TO: MRS. GLORIA UMALI

MR. EMILIANO UMALI

PERSON APPREHENDED/PROPERTY SEIZED/RECOVERED


16/102

Mrs. Gloria Umali 16 Aluminum Foils of

Mr. Emiliano Umali Suspected Marijuana leaves

TIME/DATE LEFT SAID PLACE: 221450H Apr '85

WITNESSES (sic) BY:

1. (Sgd) Reynaldo S. Pasumbal

2. (Sgd) Luisabel P. Punzalan

3. (Sgd) Arnulfo C. Veneracion

4. (Sgd) Isidro C. Capino

Samples of the marijuana leaves confiscated were submitted to the PC CameLaboratory for examination. Capt. Rosalinda Royales of the PC crime Laboratorytook the witness stand, testified and identified the marijuana submitted to herand in a written report which was marked as Exhibit "G" she gave the followingfindings:

Qualitative examination conducted on the specimen mentionedabove gave POSITIVE result to the tests fur marijuana.

In Criminal Case No. 85-516, Francisco Manalo was charged of having in his

possession Indian Hemp on April 5, 1985, in violation of Section 8, Article 11 ofRepublic Act 6425 as amended, otherwise as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.The Court in rendering against him disposed the case as follows:

In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused Guiltybeyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of"Indian Hemp" penalized under Sec. 8 of Article 6425 (sic); asamended otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972and the Court hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment oftwo (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional to six (6)years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor and to pay a fine of Six

Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00). Let the period of detention of theaccused be credited to his sentence.

Accused never disputed the claim of Francisco Manalo that the marijuana foundin his possession on April 5, 1985 in the municipality of Tiaong, Quezon was soldto him by the accused Gloria Umali. The defense also did not dispute the claim ofthe prosecution that in the investigation of Pierre Pangan, the police investigator


17/102

came to know that Gloria Umali was the source of the marijuana leaves which heused and smoked resulting in his present drug dependency. (Rollo, pp. 22-27)

The appellant vehemently denied the findings of the lower court and insisted that said courtcommitted reversible errors in convicting her. She alleged that witness Francisco Manalo is not

reputed to be trustworthy and reliable and that his words should not be taken on its face value.Furthermore, he stressed that said witness has several charges in court and because of hisdesire to have some of his cases dismissed, he was likely to tell falsehood.

However, the plaintiff-appellee through the Solicitor General said that even if Francisco Manalowas then facing several criminal charges when he testified, such fact did not in any waydisqualify him as a witness. "His testimony is not only reasonable and probable but more so, itwas also corroborated in its material respect by the other prosecution witnesses, especially thepolice officers." (Rollo, pp. 83-84)

The appellant also claimed that the marked money as well as the marijuana were confiscatedfor no other purpose than using them as evidence against the accused in the proceeding forviolation of Dangerous Drugs Act and therefore the search warrant issued is illegal from thevery beginning. She stressed that there can be no other plausible explanation other than thatshe was a victim of a frame-up.

In relation to this contention, the Solicitor General noted that it is not true that the evidencessubmitted by the prosecution were obtained in violation of her constitutional right againstillegal search and seizure.

Furthermore, the appellant contended that the essential elements of the crime of which she

was charged were never established by clear and convincing evidence to warrant the findings ofthe court a quo. She also stressed that the court's verdict of conviction is merely based onsurmises and conjectures.

However, the Solicitor General noted that the positive and categorical testimonies of theprosecution witnesses who had personal knowledge of the happening together with thephysical evidence submitted clearly prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of accused-appellant for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Time and again, it is stressed that this Court is enjoined from casually modifying or rejecting thetrial court's factual findings. Such factual findings, particularly the trial judge's assessment ofthe credibility of the testimony of the witnesses are accorded with great respect on appeal forthe trial judge enjoys the advantage of directly and at first hand observing and examining thetestimonial and other proofs as they are presented at the trial and is therefore better situatedto form accurate impressions and conclusions on the basis thereof (See People v. Bravo, G.R.No. 68422, 29 December, 1989,180 SCRA 694,699). The findings of the trial court are entitled togreat weight, and should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the trial court hadoverlooked certain facts of weight and importance, it being acknowledged that the court below,


18/102

having seen and heard the witnesses during the trial, is in a better position to evaluate theirtestimonies (People v. Alverez y Soriano, G.R. No. 70831, 29 July 1988, 163 SCRA 745, 249;People v. Dorado, G.R. No. L-23464, October 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 53; People v. Espejo, G.R. No. L-27708, December 19, 1970, 36 SCRA 400). Hence, in the absence of any showing that the trialcourt had overlooked certain substantial facts, said factual findings are entitled to great weight,

and indeed are binding even on this Court.

Rule 130, Section 20 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that:

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.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of acrime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground fordisqualification.

The phrase "conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law" takes into accountArticle 821 of the Civil Code which states that persons 91 convicted of falsification of adocument, perjury or false testimony" are disqualified from being witnesses to a will."(Paras, RULES OF COURT ANNOTATED, Vol. IV First Ed., p. 44)

Since the witness Francisco Manalo is not convicted of any of the above-mentioned crimes to

disqualify him as a witness and this case does not involve the probate of a will, We rule that thefact that said witness is facing several criminal charges when he testified did not in any waydisqualify him as a witness.

The testimony of a witness should be given full faith and credit, in the absence of evidence thathe was actuated by improper motive (People v. Melgar, G.R. No. 75268,29 January 1988, 157

SCRA 718). Hence, in the absence of any evidence that witness Francisco Manalo was actuatedby improper motive, his testimony must be accorded full credence.

Appellant's contention that she was a victim of a "frame-up" is devoid of merit. "Courts must bevigilant. A handy defense in such cases is that it is a frame-up and that the police attempted toextort from the accused. Extreme caution must be exercised in appreciating such defense. It is

just as easy to concoct as a frame-up. At all times the police, the prosecution and the Courtsmust be always on guard against these hazards in the administration of criminal justice."(People v. Rojo, G.R. No. 82737, 5 July 1989, 175 SCRA 119)

The appellant's allegation that the search warrant is illegal cannot also be given any merit."Where marked peso bills were seized by the police as a result of the search made on theappellant, the admissibility of these marked peso bills hinges on the legality of the arrest andsearch on the person of the appellant" (People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, 27 February 1989, 170SCRA 681). Since the search is predicated on a valid search warrant, absent any showing thatsuch was procured maliciously the things seized are admissible in evidence.


19/102

Appellant argues that the lower court's verdict is based on surmises and conjectures, hence theessential elements of the crime were never established by clear and convincing evidence.

Conviction cannot be predicated on a presumption or speculation. A conviction for a criminaloffense must be based on clear and positive evidence and not on mere presumptions (Gaerlan

v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57876, 6 November 1989, 179 SCRA 20). The prosecution'sevidence consisted of the testimony of witness Manalo and the law enforcers as well as thephysical evidence consisting of the seized marked peso bills, the two (2) foils of marijuanapurchased and the can containing sixteen (16) aluminum foils of dried marijuana.

Credence is accorded to the prosecution's evidence more so as it consisted mainly oftestimonies of policemen. Law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their dutyin the absence of proof to the contrary (People v. Tejada, G.R. No. 81520, 21 February 1989,170 SCRA 497). Hence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, full credence should beaccorded to the prosecution's evidence. The evidence on record sufficiently established thatUmali gave two (2) foils of marijuana to witness Manalo for which she was given and receivedfour (4) marked five peso (P5.00) bills, and fully supports conviction for drug pushing inviolation of Section 4 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Thus, the Court has no option but to declare that the trial court did not err in finding, on thebasis of the evidence on record, that the accused-appellant Gloria Umali violated Section 4,Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Pursuant to recent jurisprudence and law, the case is covered by Section 4 of Republic Act No.6425 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675, effective February 17, 1980, which raisedthe penalty for selling prohibited drugs from life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from

twenty to thirty thousand pesos (People v. Adriano, G.R. No. 65349, October 31, 1984, 133SCRA 132) Thus, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment but failed toimpose a fine.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the modification that a fine of twentythousand pesos (P20,000.00) be imposed, as it is hereby imposed, on the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 135022. July 11, 2002]


20/102

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

A man descends into the depths of human debasement when he inflicts his lechery upon aminor, and all the more when he imposes such lasciviousness upon a woman whose capacity togive consent to a sexual union is diminished, if not totally lacking. Such is the case of JonalynYumang (hereafter JONALYN).

Upon a complaint[1]dated 5 July 1996 signed by JONALYN with the assistance of her aunt

Carmelita Borja, two informations were filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor beforethe Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, charging Bienvenido Dela Cruz (hereafterBIENVENIDO) with rape allegedly committed on 3 and 4 July 1996. The informations weredocketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 1274-M-96 and 1275-M-96. The accusatory portion of theinformation docketed as Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96, which is the subject of this appellatereview, reads:

That on or about the 3rd day of July 1996, in the Municipality of Calumpit, Province of Bulacan,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused[Bienvenido dela Cruz @ Jun] did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with lewddesign have carnal knowledge of one Jonalyn Yumang y Banag, a mentally deficient femaleperson, against her will and without her consent.

Contrary to law.[2]

Upon arraignment on 14 October 1996, BIENVENIDO entered a plea of not guilty .[3]

Thecases were consolidated, and joint trial on the merits ensued thereafter.

When JONALYN was presented as its first witness, the prosecution sought to obtain fromthe trial court an order for the conduct of a psychiatric examination on her person to determineher mental and psychological capability to testify in court. The purpose was that should hermental capacity be found to be below normal, the prosecution could propound leadingquestions to JONALYN. The defense, through Atty. Jesus M. Pamintuan, vigorously opposed theprosecutions manifestation. Nonetheless, the trial court allowed the prosecutor to conductdirect examination on JONALYN so that if in its perception she would appear to be suffering

from mental deficiency, the prosecutor could be permitted to ask leading questions. JONALYN

was then made to identify her signature in her sworn statement and to identify the accused,and was asked about her personal circumstances. Thereafter, noticing that JONALYN haddifficulty in expressing herself, the trial court decided to suspend the proceedings to give theprosecution sufficient time to confer with her.[4]

At the next hearing, the trial court allowed the prosecution to put on the witness stand Dr.Cecilia Tuazon, Medical Officer III of the National Center for Mental Health, Mandaluyong

City. Dr. Tuazon testified that she conducted a psychiatric examination on JONALYN on 12 July
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn1


21/102

1996. She found that JONALYN was suffering from a moderate level of mental retardation andthat although chronologically the latter was already 20 years of age (at the time of theexamination), she had the mental age of an 8-year-old child under the Wechsler AdultIntelligence Scale. Dr. Tuazon also found that JONALYN could have attained a higher degree ofintelligence if not for the fact that she was unschooled and no proper motivation was employed

on her, and that she had the capacity to make her perception known to others. She, however,observed that she had to prompt JONALYN most of the time to elicit information on the

sexual harassment incident. She then narrated that JONALYN was able to relate to her that she

(JONALYN) was approached by a tall man named Jun-Jun who led her to a house thatsupposedly belonged to her cousin, and that Jun-Jun disrobed JONALYN and raped her twice.[5]

After said testimony or on 11 March 1997, the trial court issued an order[6]allowing leading

questions to be propounded to JONALYN in accordance with Section 10(c), Rule 132 of theRules on Evidence.[7]Thus, JONALYN took the witness stand. She again identified her signatureand that of her aunt on her Sinumpaang Salaysay. She also identified BIENVENIDO as theperson against whom she filed a complaint for rape. She declared in open court that

BIENVENIDO raped her twice inside the house of a certain Mhel located at Barangay Gatbuca,Calumpit, Bulacan. She stated that BIENVENIDO placed himself on top of her and inserted hisprivate part into her womanhood.[8]

Dr. Edgardo Gueco, Chief and Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police CrimeLaboratory, Camp Olivas, Pampanga, testified that he examined JONALYN on 8 July 1996, andthe results of the examination were indicated in his Medico-Legal Report .[9]He found that shewas in a non-virgin state physically, as her hymen bore deep fresh and healing lacerations at

3, 8 and 11 oclock positions. He then opined that the hymenal lacerations were sustained aweek before the examination and, therefore, compatible with the time the rapes were allegedlycommitted.[10]

Carmelita Borja, aunt of JONALYN, testified that on 5 July 1996, she accompanied JONALYNto the Philippine National Police (PNP) Office in Calumpit, Bulacan, to lodge a complaint againstBIENVENIDO. With them were JONALYNs mother Conchita Yuson and Barangay Councilman

Roberto Dungo. Carmelita testified that in instituting this case, their family incurred expensesamounting to P30,000.[11]

After the prosecution rested its case and formally offered its exhibits, the defense filed amotion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence, which was granted. Thus, the defensefiled on 5 December 1997 a Demurrer to Evidence[12]on the following grounds:

(a) That the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cases; and

(b) The presumption of accuseds innocence had not even *sic] been overcome by theprosecution due to the insufficiency of its evidence.

Expounding its theory, the defense first admitted that it could have moved to quash theinformation but it did not because the complaint on which the information was based was onits face valid, it having been signed by JONALYN as the offended party. However, the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn5


22/102

undeniable truth is that JONALYN had no capacity to sign the same considering her mentaldeficiency or abnormality. The assistance extended to JONALYN by her aunt Carmelita Borjadid not cure the defect, as the enumeration in Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code of thepersons who could file a complaint for rape is exclusive and successive and the mother ofJONALYN was still very much alive.

The defense also insisted on assailing the competency of JONALYN as a witness. It claimedthat JONALYNs testimony, considering her mental state, was coached and rehearsed. Worse,she was not only asked leading questions but was fed legal and factual conclusions which she

was made to admit as her own when they were in fact those of the prosecution.

In its Order of 26 January 1998,[13]the trial court denied the Demurrer to Evidence and setthe dates for the presentation of the evidence for the defense. However, BIENVENIDO filed a

Motion for Judgment, stating in part as follows:

*A+fter going over the Records and carefully analyzing the proceedings as well as

meticulously evaluating the evidence presented and offered [by] the private complainant, inconsultation with his parents, and assisted by undersigned counsel, [he] had decided to submit the cases for judgment without the need of presenting any evidence to explain his terse

PLEA OF NOT GUILTY to the charges upon his arraignment.[14]

Noting this new development, the trial court, in its Order of 17 February 1998, consideredthe case submitted for decision.[15]

In its Joint Decision of 3 April 1998,[16]the trial court convicted BIENVENIDO of the crime ofrape in Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96, but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 1274-M-96 forinsufficiency of evidence. While conceding that JONALYNs narration of how she was sexually

abused by BIENVENIDO was not detailed, the trial court, nonetheless, concluded that it was

candidly related by one who had the mental age of an 8-year-old child. The trial court wasconvinced that JONALYN was able to show in her own peculiar way that she was indeed

raped by BIENVENIDO on 3 July 1996. Finally, the trial court ruled that BIENVENIDOsculpability was further bolstered by his choice not to offer any evidence for his defense despiteample opportunity to do so. Accordingly, it sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua and to pay JONALYN the amount of P60,000 by way of civil indemnity.

In his Appellants Brief,[17]BIENVENIDO asserts that the trial court committed the followingerrors:

1. ... in having taken the fatally defective criminal complaint for a valid conferment

upon it of jurisdiction to try and dispose of said two (2) charges of rape.

2. ... in having accepted as competent the mentally deficient private complainant evenwithout first requiring any evidence of her capacity as such a witness.

3. ... in having considered the narration read to the complaining witness from preparedstatements and asked of her simply to confirm as true, as her own.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn13


23/102

4. ... in having given full credence and weight to complainants conclusions of facts

merely put to her mouth by leading questions of the prosecutor.

5. ... in having convicted the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96, butacquitting in Criminal Case No. 1274-M-96, on the basis of private complainantspurported sworn versions supposedly given in both charges.

BIENVENIDO reiterates the issues he raised in his Demurrer to Evidence. He assails thecompetency of JONALYN as signatory to the complaint she filed. He adds that the defect in thecomplaint was not cured by his failure to interpose a motion to quash nor by the assistance lent

by JONALYNs aunt, which contravened Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently,

BIENVENIDO asserts that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case.

BIENVENIDO also stresses the incompetency of JONALYN as a trial witness for the reasonthat the prosecution failed to prove her competency. Further, JONALYN was merely asked toaffirm the legal and factual conclusions of the prosecution which evinced quite clearly the girls

lack of comprehension of the court proceedings and the nature of her oath. Besides, her

statements concerning the alleged sexual penetration were elicited a month after her initialoffer as a witness, which reinforces the rehearsed and coached nature of her testimony.

Finally, he wonders why he was convicted in Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96 but acquitted inCriminal Case No. 1274-M-96 when it was a joint trial and the evidence was the same. Heinsists that he should also be acquitted in the case at bar.

In the Appellees Brief,[18]the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the trial

court had jurisdiction over the case, since the complaint and information filed werevalid. JONALYNs mental retardation does not render her incompetent for initiating the

prosecution of the crime committed against her and for testifying in court. If minors are

allowed not only to initiate the prosecution of offenses under Article 344 of the Revised PenalCode and Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, but also to testify underthe Rules on Evidence, JONALYN, who had the mentality of an 8-year-old child, was competentto sign the criminal complaint and to be a witness in court. JONALYNs competency as a courtwitness was aptly proved when she was able to answer the leading questions asked of her asallowed by Section 10(c), Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence. Moreover, the OSG asseveratesthat JONALYNs testimony on the fact of rape is corroborated by medical and physicalevidence. As to BIENVENIDOs quandary that he should be acquitted also in this case, it isconvinced that he should have been convicted for two counts of rape, as JONALYN expresslytestified that she was raped twice by BIENVENIDO. Finally, the OSG seeks an award of moraldamages in the amount of P50,000 for JONALYN, as well as a reduction of the award of civil

indemnity to P50,000 in conformity with current jurisprudence.

We shall discuss the issues in seriatim.

I. Validity of the Complaint for Rape
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn18


24/102

We agree with the disputation of the OSG that the trial court validly took cognizance of thecomplaint filed by JONALYN. The pertinent laws existing at the time the crimes were committedwere Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code (prior to its amendment by R.A. No.8353[19]otherwise known as The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which took effect on 22 October1997[20]) and Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. Article 344 of the

Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape andacts of lasciviousness. --

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecutedexcept upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian,nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, asthe case may be.

Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure states:

Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.All criminal actions either commenced bycomplaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of thefiscal. However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when there is no fiscal

available, the offended party, any peace officer or public officer charged with the enforcementof the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority ceases upon actual intervention ofthe fiscal or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court.

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecutedexcept upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian,nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, asthe case may be. In case the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she couldfile the complaint and has no known parents, grandparents, or guardian, the State shall initiatethe criminal action in her behalf.

The offended party, even if she were a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution for theabove offenses, independently of her parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is

incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. Where theoffended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or guardianmay file the same. The right to file the action granted to the parents, grandparents orguardians shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in the orderherein provided, except as stated in the immediately preceding paragraph.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn19


25/102

A complaint of the offended party or her relatives is required in crimes against chastity outof consideration for the offended woman and her family, who might prefer to suffer theoutrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. The law deems itthe wiser policy to let the aggrieved woman and her family decide whether to expose to publicview or to heated controversies in court the vices, fault, and disgraceful acts occurring in the

family.[21]

It has been held that *w+hen it is said that the requirement in Article 344 (that there shall

be a complaint of the offended party or her relatives) is jurisdictional, what is meant is that it is

the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding. It is not the complaint which confersjurisdiction on the court to try the case. The courts jurisdiction is vested in it by the JudiciaryLaw.

[22]

The complaint in the instant case has complied with the requirement under the RevisedPenal Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which vest upon JONALYN, as the offendedparty, the right to institute the criminal action. As signed by JONALYN, the complaint startedthe prosecutory proceeding. The assistance of JONALYNs aunt, or even of her mother, was a

superfluity. JONALYNs signature alone suffices to validate the complaint.

We agree with the OSG that if a minor under the Rules of Court can file a complaint forrape independently of her parents, JONALYN, then 20 years of age who was found to have thementality of an 8-year-old girl, could likewise file the complaint independently of her relatives.Her complaint can be rightfully considered filed by a minor.

The overriding intention of BIENVENIDO is to challenge the validity of the complaint byassailing the competency of JONALYN to file the complaint. But even he admits in his Demurrerto Evidence that the complaint is proper and valid on its face for which reason he did not moveto quash the information. Thus, even he admits and recognizes the futility of his argument.

II. Competence of JONALYN to Testify

The determination of the competence of witnesses to testify rests primarily with the trialjudge who sees them in the witness stand and observes their behavior or their possession orlack of intelligence, as well as their understanding of the obligation of an oath.[23]

The prosecution has proved JONALYNs competency by the testimony of Dr. Tuazon. Thefinding of the trial court, as supported by the testimony of Dr. Tuazon that JONALYN had the

understanding of an 8-year-old child, does not obviate the fact of her competency. Its onlyeffect was to consider her testimony from the point of view of an 8-year-old minor. Even amental retardate is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness.[24]JONALYN, who may beconsidered as a mental retardate but with the ability to make her perceptions known to others,is a competent witness under Section 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence.[25]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn21


26/102

JONALYNs competency is also better established in the answers she gave under directexamination relative to the harrowing defilement she suffered in the hands of BIENVENIDO,thus:

Q And the nature of your complaint was that you were abused or you were raped by theherein accused Bienvenido de la Cruz y Santiago, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

...

Q And do you know in what place where you raped by the accused, Bienvenido dela Cruz y

Santiago?

A Inside the house, sir.

Q Whose house?

A In the house of Mhel, sir.[26]

Q How many times were you raped by the herein accused Bienvenido dela Cruz y Santiagoalias Jun Jun?

A Twice, sir.

Court: Where?

Fiscal: Where?

Witness: On top of the wooden bed, sir.[27]

Q You said you were raped twice by the herein accused, Bienvenido dela Cruz alias Jun-Junon a papag inside the house of Mhel at Barangay Gatbuca, Calumpit, Bulacan, how didJun Jun the herein accused rape[] you?

Court: On the first time?

A He layed [sic] me to bed, sir.

Q After you were layed [sic] on the bed what happened next?

A He went on top of me, sir.[28]

Q Last time, you stated that the herein accused whom you called Jun laid you on top of abed and after that, he went on top of you. My question is, when he went on top of you,what did he do to you, if any?

A: Pumaloob sa akin.[29]


27/102

Q Now, when the accused, which you called Jun, pumaloob sa iyo, what did you feel atthat time?

A I felt a hard object, sir.

Q Now since you said it [was] a hard object, you could now tell the Court, what that hard

object [was]?

A I cannot remember.[30]

Public Prosecutor:

Q When you said the last time around, you were asked about, what you mean bypumaloob siya sa akin and then you said that there was a hard object inserted andafter that, the follow-up question was asked on you, you said you cannot remember,

what is that hard object, what do you mean when you say I cannot remember?

Atty. Pamintuan:

Leading.

Court:

Witness may answer, subject to your objection.

Witness:

His private part was inserted in my private part, sir.[31]

Court: But there was an answer a while ago. Witness may answer.

Witness:

A Yes, sir.

Public Pros.:

Q And, when you say he did the same to you, he inserted his penis to your vagina?

A Yes, sir.

Public Pros.:

No further question, Your Honor.[32]

III. Credibility of JONALYN as a Witness
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn30


28/102

The foregoing narrative has established not only JONALYNs competency but also her

credibility. Moreover, considering her feeble mind, she could not have fabricated or concoctedher charge against BIENVENIDO. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that no impropermotive was shown by the defense as to why JONALYN would file a case or falsely testify againstBIENVENIDO. A rape victims testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has

absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused.[33]

It has been held that nowoman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow anexamination of her private parts, and thereafter permit herself to be subjected to a public trial

if she is not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[34]

We, therefore, affirm the trial courts decision to lend full credence to the testimony of

JONALYN on the circumstances of the rape, thus:

In so few a word, complainant has made herself clear about the sexual molestation she suffered

in the hands of the accused. Plain and simple her testimony may have been, unembellished, asit is, with details, yet, it is in its simplicity that its credence is enhanced. Certainly, we cannot

expect complainant, in her present state of mind, to come out with a full account of hermisfortune with all its lurid details. That, to this Court, is simply beyond the reach of herenfeebled mind. She came to talk on her sad plight from the viewpoint of an 8-year-old child,and she must, by all means, be understood in that light.[35]

Absent any cogent reason warranting a disturbance of the findings of the trial court on thecredibility and competency of JONALYN, this Court has to give these findings utmost respect, ifnot complete affirmation. Settled is the rule that the trial courts evaluation of the testimonies

of witnesses is accorded the highest respect, for it has an untrammeled opportunity to observedirectly the demeanor of witnesses on the stand and, thus, to determine whether they aretelling the truth.[36]

IV. Propriety of Propounding Leading Questions to JONALYN

We likewise agree with the trial courts conclusion that JONALYNs testimony should be

taken and understood from the point of view of an 8-year-old child. JONALYNs testimony isconsistent with the straightforward and innocent testimony of a child. Thus, the prosecutions

persistent, repetitious and painstaking effort in asking leading questions was necessary andindispensable in the interest of justice to draw out from JONALYNs lips the basic details of thegrave crime committed against her by BIENVENIDO.

The trial court did not err in allowing leading questions to be propounded to JONALYN. It isusual and proper for the court to permit leading questions in conducting the examination of awitness who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical condition; uneducated; ignorant of,or unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated; feeble-minded; ofsluggish mental equipment; confused and agitated; terrified; timid or embarrassed while on the


29/102

stand; lacking in comprehension of questions asked or slow to understand; deaf and dumb; orunable to speak or understand the English language or only imperfectly familiar therewith.[37]

The leading questions were neither conclusions of facts merely put into the mouth ofJONALYN nor prepared statements which she merely confirmed as true. The questions wereindeed carefully phrased and sometimes based on her Sinumpaang Salaysay to make JONALYNunderstand the import of the questions. In the same vein, the prosecutions referral toJONALYNsSinumpaang Salaysay to refresh her memory was also reasonable. The purpose ofrefreshing the recollection of a witness is to enable both the witness and her present testimony

to be put fairly and in their proper light before the court.[38]

Thus, JONALYNs behavior merely conformed to Dr. Tuazons clinical and expert

observation that JONALYN had to be continuously and repetitiously prompted so that she

could answer and recount a terrible experience. JONALYNs constant eyeball fixature towardsher aunt and mother does not by itself indicate coaching, in the face of a dearth of otherevidentiary bases that the latter did coach her. There was nothing in the behavior of JONALYNwhich was indicative of her failure to understand the import of the trial proceedings. Heridentification of BIENVENIDO as her assailant is quite telling on how simple, yet unassuming,her grasp of the situation was. Thus:

Stenographer:

Reading back the question.

Q Because you understand that this was explained to you, I would like to read to youparticularly question number 3.

Tanong: Sino naman ang ibig mong idemanda?

Answer: Si Bienvenido dela Cruz y Santiago alias Jun Jun po.

Was this explain[ed] to you?

Atty. Pamintuan:

I stand correct[sic].

Witness:

Yes, sir.

Fiscal:

(to the witness)

Q Now, this Bienvenido dela Cruz y Santiago alias Jun Jun, which was the person whomyou are filing the complaint of [sic], will you kindly look around to this Court and tell uswhether or not he is inside.

A Yes, sir.

Q Would you mind to point him?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/135022.htm#_edn37


30/102


31/102

[G.R. No. 114007. September 24, 1996]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GONZALO GALAS, JOSUE GALAS, NOE GALAS,DIMAS ACMA alias "DEWAY", and MAXIMO DELGADO, accused-appellants.

D E C I S I O N

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Federico Gamayon, a farmer and resident of Apoaporawan, Palawan, died on 23 December1985 in Tinagong Dagat, Narra, Palawan, due to six hack wounds and two stab wounds inflictedon various parts of his body. Held to account for his death were the accused herein.

The prosecution was commenced by the filing of a criminal complaint for murder in theMunicipal Trial Court (MTC) of Narra, Palawan. The complaint was then amended to charge the

accused with the lesser offense of homicide.[1]

They were released by the said court upon theapproval of their bail bonds and the record of the case was forwarded to the Office of theProvincial Fiscal of Palawan. In his resolution of 7 April 1986,[2]then Provincial Fiscal AurelioTrampe recommended the filing of an information for murder due to the presence of thequalifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength.

On 8 April 1986, an Information[3]was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)of Palawan by Provincial Fiscal Trampe charging the accused with the crime of murdercommitted as follows:

That on or about the 23 rd day of December, 1985 at Barangay Tinagong Dagat Municipality of

Narra, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, theabove-named accused conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one anotherwith intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery and by the use of superiorstrength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stabwith their deadly weapons one Federico Gamayon hitting him in different vital parts of his bodythereby inflicting upon him several injuries which was the direct and immediate cause of hisinstantaneous death.

Contrary to law and committed with aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation anduse of superior strength.

No bond was recommended for the temporary liberty of the accused.

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 6233 and initially assigned to Branch 48 of thesaid court.

On 10 February 1988, the court, per Judge Singuat Guerra, granted the motion of 9February 1987 filed by Third Assistant Fiscal Reynaldo R. Guayco with the approval of ProvincialFiscal Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr., for the cancellation of the bail bonds of the accused and the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/114007.htm#_edn1


32/102

issuance of a warrant for their arrest in view of the filing of the information for murder whichrecommended no bond for them.[4]

On 30 October 1987, Judge Guerra ordered the case archived and directed the issuance ofan alias warrant of arrest since no return was made of the warrant of arrest issued on 10February 1987. Two more alias warrants of arrest were subsequently issued, but no returnswere likewise made. Thus, on 12 July 1988, Judge Guerra directed the Station Commander ofNarra, Palawan, to show cause and explain why he should not be held for indirect con

Evidence Midterms

Documents

Transcript of Evidence Midterms