7/26/2019 Peopl vs. Turco

1/2

Peopl Vs. Turco

Facts:

Accused-appellant Rodegelio Turco, Jr. (aka Totong) was charged with the rape ofhis neighbor !-"ear-old #scelea Tabada. #scelea was about to sleep when she hearda fa$iliar %oice calling her fro$ outside her house. &he recogni'ed appellant Turcoi$$ediatel" as she had known hi$ for "ears and he is her second cousin. nawareof the danger that was about to befall her, #scelea opened the door. Turco, with theuse of towel, co%ered #scelea*s face, placed his right hand on the latter*s neck andbid her to walk. +hen the" reached a grass" part, near the pig pen which was about $eters awa" fro$ the %icti$*s house, appellant lost no ti$e in la"ing the %icti$on the grass, laid on top of the %icti$ and took o her short pants and pant" andsucceeded in pursuing his e%il design-b" forcibl" inserting his penis inside #scelea*spri%ate part despite #scelea*s resistance. Appellant then threatened her that he willkill her if she reports the incident to an"bod".

or al$ost / da"s, she 0ust kept the incident to herself until she was able to $usterenough courage to tell her brother-in-law, 1rlando 2io3uinto, who in turn infor$edAle0andro, the %icti$*s father, about the rape of his daughter. Ale0andro did not wasteti$e and i$$ediatel" asked #scelea to see a doctor for $edical e4a$ination ande%entuall" 5le a co$plaint after the issuance of the $edical certi5cate. Turco,$eanwhile, alleged that he and #scelea were sweethearts.

The trial court found Turco guilt" of the charge.

6n his appeal, Turco argues, a$ong others, that no actual proof was presented thatthe rape of the co$plainant actuall" happened considering that although a $edicalcerti5cate was presented, the $edico-legal o7cer who prepared the sa$e was not

presented in court to e4plain the sa$e.

Issue:

+89 the lower court erred in 5nding the appellant guilt" of rape

+89 the appellant*s contention that the $edical certi5cate $a" not be considered iswith $erit

Held:

1. No.The &upre$e :ourt agrees with the lower court*s 5nding of credibilit" in thetesti$on" and e%idence presented b" the %icti$, and 5nds the appellant guilt" ofrape be"ond reasonable doubt.

2. Yes. +ith regards to appellant*s argu$ent on the proof of $edical certi5cate,while the certi5cate could be ad$itted as an e4ception to the hearsa" rule since

7/26/2019 Peopl vs. Turco

2/2

entries in o7cial records constitute e4ceptions to the hearsa" e%idence rule, since itin%ol%ed an opinion of one who $ust 5rst be established as an e4pert witness, itcould not be gi%en weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented incourt to show his 3uali5cations. #$phasis $ust be placed on the distinction betweenad$issibilit" of e%idence and the probati%e %alue thereof. #%idence is ad$issiblewhen it is rele%ant to the issue and is not e4cluded b" the law or the rules or is

co$petent. &ince ad$issibilit" of e%idence is deter$ined b" its rele%ance andco$petence, ad$issibilit" is, therefore, an aair of logic and law. 1n the other hand,the weight to be gi%en to such e%idence, once ad$itted, depends on 0udiciale%aluation within the guidelines pro%ided in Rule !! and the 0urisprudence laid downb" the :ourt. Thus, while e%idence $a" be ad$issible, it $a" be entitled to little orno weight at all. :on%ersel", e%idence which $a" ha%e e%identiar" weight $a" beinad$issible because a special rule forbids its reception.

+ithal, although the $edical certi5cate is an e4ception to the hearsa" rule, hencead$issible as e%idence, it has %er" little probati%e %alue due to the absence of thee4a$ining ph"sician. 9e%ertheless, it cannot be said that the prosecution reliedsolel" on the $edical certi5cate. 6n fact, reliance was $ade on the testi$on" of the%icti$ herself which, standing alone e%en without $edical e4a$ination, is su7cient

to con%ict. 6t is well-settled that a $edical e4a$ination is not indispensable in theprosecution of rape. The absence of $edical 5ndings b" a $edico-legal o7cer doesnot dispro%e the occurrence of rape. 6t is enough that the e%idence on handcon%inces the court that con%iction is proper. 6n the instant case, the %icti$*stesti$on" alone is credible and su7cient to con%ict.