evidence - preliminary consideration

7/24/2019 Evidence - Preliminary Consideration

1/78

EVIDENCE PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff- Appellee,

- versus-

BENIGNO FETALINO y

GABALDON,

Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 174472

Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.,

Chairpersn,

A!STRIA-"ARTINE#,

C$ICO-NA#ARIO, and

NAC$!RA,JJ.

Pr%ul&ated:

'une (), *++

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E C I S I O N

C$ICO-NA#ARIO,J.:

/r Re0ie1 is the ecisin2(3f the Curt f Appeals pr%ul&ated n 4(

"a5 *++6 in CA-G.R. CR-$.C. N. +*(6* entitled,People of the Philippines v.

Benigno Fetalino y Gabaldon, affir%in&, 1ith %dificatin, the

'ud&%ent2*3dated *) 'ul5 *++7 f the Re&inal Trial Curt f "andalu5n& Cit5,

8ranch *(4, in Cri%inal Cases N. "C-))-(779, "C- ))-(776, "C-))-(77-$,

"C ))-(77-$, and "C-))-(77)-$.

Appellant std char&ed 1ith t1 cunts f acts f lasci0iusness and three

cunts f rape alle&edl5 c%%itted a&ainst the persn f his 1n dau&hter, AAA.243The Infr%atins, all si&ned ;5 Assistant Cit5 Prsecutr Carls A.


2/78

In Criminal Case No. MC!!"##$

That n r a;ut the *(stda5 f "arch ())), in the Cit5 f >>>, Philippines, aplace 1ithin the ?urisdictin f this $nra;le Curt, the a;0e-na%ed accused,

1ith le1d desi&n, ;5 frce and inti%idatin, did, then and there 1illfull5,

unla1full5 and felniusl5 c%%it acts f lasci0iusness upn the persn f 2his3

dau&hter AAA, a &irl siteen @(6 5ears f a&e, and su;?ected t seual a;use, ;5insertin& his fin&er int her 0a&ina a&ainst her 1ill and cnsent.273

In Criminal Case No. MC!!"##%

That n r a;ut the **ndda5 f "arch ())), in the Cit5 f >>>, Philippines, a

place 1ithin the ?urisdictin f this $nra;le Curt, the a;0e-na%ed accused,1ith le1d desi&n, ;5 frce and inti%idatin, did, then and there 1illfull5,

unla1full5 and felniusl5 c%%it acts f lasci0iusness upn the persn f 2his3

dau&hter, AAA, a &irl siteen @(6 5ears f a&e, and su;?ected t seual a;use, ;5insertin& his fin&er int her 0a&ina a&ainst her 1ill and cnsent.293

In Criminal Case No. MC!!"##&'

That n r a;ut the *4 rdda5 f "arch ())), in the Cit5 f >>>, Philippines, a

place 21ithin3 the ?urisdictin f this $nra;le Curt, the a;0e-na%ed accused,

1ith le1d desi&n, ;5 %eans f frce and inti%idatin, did, then and there 1illfull5,unla1full5 and felniusl5 ha0e carnal Bn1led&e f 2his3 dau&hter AAA, a &irl

siteen 5ears f a&e, and su;?ected t seual a;use, all a&ainst her 1ill and

cnsent.263

In Criminal Case No. MC !!"##('

That n r a;ut the *7thda5 f "arch ())), in the Cit5 f >>>, Philippines, aplace 21ithin3 the ?urisdictin f this $nra;le Curt, the a;0e-na%ed accused,

1ith le1d desi&n, ;5 %eans f frce and inti%idatin, did, then and there 1illfull5,

unla1full5 and felniusl5 ha0e carnal Bn1led&e f 2his3 dau&hter AAA, a &irlsiteen 5ears f a&e, and su;?ected t seual a;use, all a&ainst her 1ill and

cnsent.23

In Criminal Case No. MC !!"##!'

That n r a;ut the *9thda5 f "arch ())), in the Cit5 f >>>,

Philippines, a place 21ithin3 the ?urisdictin f this $nra;le Curt, the a;0e-na%ed accused, 1ith le1d desi&n, ;5 %eans f frce and inti%idatin, did, then

and there 1illfull5, unla1full5 and felniusl5 ha0e carnal Bn1led&e f 2his3

dau&hter AAA, a &irl siteen 5ears f a&e and su;?ected t seual a;use, alla&ainst her 1ill and cnsent.23

On *+ April ())), the arrai&n%ent fr Cri%inal Cases N. "C-))-(779 and

"C-)) ))-(776 1as held at 1hich ti%e appellant pleaded nt &uilt5 t the char&es
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn8


3/78

f acts f lasci0iusness.2)3On (+ /e;ruar5 *+++, he entered a si%ilar plea t the

three cunts f rape in Cri%inal Cases N. "C-))-(77-$, "C-))-(77-$, and

"C-))-(77)-$.2(+3'int trial f the fi0e cases thereafter ensued 1ith the

prsecutin presentin& fi0e 1itnesses, na%el5: AAA, the pri0ate c%plainant

888, AAAs %ther and appellants li0e-in partner r. Dinstn S. Tan @r. Tan,

"edic-e&al Officer f the Philippine Natinal Plice @PNP Cri%e a;ratr5 in

Ca%p Cra%e, Fue=n Cit5 SPO7 'ulieta Espiritu @SPO7 Espiritu, Chief f the

D%ens esB f the PNP, >>> Cit5 and POS Rland Te?ada @POS Te?ada.

AAA 1as called t the 1itness stand as a hstile 1itness ;5 the prsecutin. The

reasn ;ehind this unusual %0e 1as eplained ;5 the prsecutr durin& the ffer

f AAAs testi%n5:

8efre 1e prceed 5ur hnr, %a5 1e %anifest that 1e are presentin& this

1itness as ur hstile 1itness in 0ie1 f her declaratin ;efre this representatinthat she is n ln&er interested in prsecutin& this case a&ainst the accused 5ur

hnr, and in 0ie1 liBe1ise, f the %anifestatin &i0en ;efre this hnra;lecurt ;5 the cunsel fr the accused that the 0icti% and the %ther f the 0icti%

ca%e t see hi% t asB her @sic t desist. 2((3

AAA testified that appellant raped her n three separate instances in "arch

())). She recalled that the e0ents transpired in their huse 1hich 1as then

under&in& ren0atin.2(*3Appellant alle&edl5 undressed her and inserted his

pri0ate r&an int her 0a&ina fr 1hich she felt pain and cried. She clai%ed that

she tried t resist appellants ;estial attacB and that she stru&&led 1ith hi% ;5 tr5in&

t re%0e his hands. She culd nt shut fr help as appellant threatened her 1ith

har%. After satisf5in& his lust, appellant tld her nt t reprt the incident t

an5;d5 r else he 1uld Bill her and her %ther. She, h1e0er, finall5 re0ealed

her sad eperiences t her %ther s%eti%e in ())). Thereafter, she 1as ;ru&ht

t the cri%e la;ratr5 in Ca%p Cra%e, Fue=n Cit5 fr a %edical

ea%inatin. The ph5sical ea%inatin 1as cnducted ;5 r. Tan 1hse test

cnfir%ed that AAA 1as alread5 in a nn-0ir&in state ph5sicall5. The pertinent

prtin f r. Tans %edic-le&al reprt states:

GENITA:

There is a;sence f pu;ic hair. a;ia %a?ra are full, cn0e and captated 1iththe pinBish ;r1n la;ia %inra presentin& in ;et1een. On separatin& the sa%e

disclsed an elastic, flesh5-t5pe h5%en 1ith deep healed laceratins at and )

clcB and shall1 healed laceratin at 6 clcB psitins. Eternal 0a&inalrifice ffers strn& resistance t the intrductin f the ea%inin& inde
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn12


4/78


5/78

!nfrtunatel5 fr AAA, her rdeal 1uld e0en taBe a turn fr the 1rse fr n *4

"arch ())), appellant apparentl5 ;eca%e %re e%;ldened and culd n ln&er

cntain his ;estial desires thus, he prceeded t ha0e carnal Bn1led&e f

AAA. AAA had t suffer such a;use n t1 %re separate instances 1hich

ccurred n *7 and *9 "arch ())).

The prsecutin presented, as its last 1itness, POS Te?ada, 1h 1as a %e%;er f

the tea% 1hich respnded t the c%plaint f AAA and 888 n *6 "arch

())). $is turn at the 1itness stand 1as ;rief, as appellants cunsel ad%itted the

su;stance f POS Te?adas 1uld-;e testi%n5 1hich pertained %ainl5 t the

circu%stances surrundin& the arrest f appellant.

/r his part, appellant ffered the hacBne5ed defense f denial t refute the char&es

;ru&ht a&ainst hi%. Appellant narrated that he and 888 had ;een li0e-in l0ers

fr al%st *9 5ears. $e ad%itted that AAA 1as indeed ne f their children. 2()3In(), he 1as i%prisned fr %urder and 1as rdered released fr% detentin

n *4 /e;ruar5 ())6./r% the ti%e he re&ained freed%, he alle&edl5 sta5ed in

the huse f ne f his le&iti%ate children lcated s%e1here in

Pac, "anila. urin& the ti%e %aterial t the case, h1e0er, he 1as at the huse

he used t share 1ith 888 and their children lcated at N. >>> St., >>>

ri0e, >>> Cit5. Said huse 1as under&in& ren0atin at that ti%e.

Appellant clai%ed that the present cri%inal char&es 1ere ;ru&ht a&ainst hi% in

retaliatin fr the ph5sical in?uries he inflicted upn 888 durin& ne f their

heated ar&u%ents 1hich ;eca%e freuent as he 1anted 888 and her ne1 li0e-in

partner t %0e ut f their huse in >>> St. In fact, accrdin& t appellant, 888

e0en char&ed hi% 1ith ph5sical in?uries 1hich 1as raffled ff t a different ;ranch

f the curt.

T ;lster appellants clai% f inncence, the defense presented CCC, anther ne

f his children 1ith 888. In CCCs recllectin, at the ti%e the cri%inal acts

c%plained f tB place, she 1as in their huse t&ether 1ith AAA, their ;rther

, and appellant. She, h1e0er, insisted that nthin& unusual happened durin&

thse dates. She re%e%;ered that althu&h appellant 1as in their huse, he spent%st f his ti%e inside his r% fiin& his ;eln&in&s.

As fr its last 1itness, the defense recalled 888 t the 1itness stand in rder t

pr0e that the nl5 reasn she eecuted her s1rn state%ent ;efre the plice 1as

;ecause she 1as an&r5 1ith appellant fr ha0in& sta;;ed her durin& ne f their

fi&hts.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn19


6/78

After trial, the curt a *uo fund appellant &uilt5 as char&ed in all the cases filed

a&ainst hi%. The dispsiti0e prtin f the trial curts ?ud&%ent states:

IN


7/78

D$ERE/ORE, the ?ud&%ent f the Re&inal Trial Curt, 8ranch *(4 f

"andalu5n& Cit5 cn0ictin& accused-appellant 8eni&n /etalin f the cri%e f

t1 @* cunts f acts f lasci0iusness in Cri%inal Case Ns. "C-))-(779 and"C-))-(776 and fr rape in Cri%inal Case N. "C-))-(77-$

isFFI-M/1ith theM0/IFIC1I0N that the penalt5 f death i%psed ;5 the

trial curt fr the cri%e f rape shuld ;e reduced t re+lusion perpetua.Accused-appellant is rdered t pa5 c%plainant AAA the fll1in& a%unts:

(. the ttal a%unt f P9+,+++.++ as %ral da%a&es*. P9+,+++.++ as ci0il inde%nit5 and

4. P*9,+++.++ as ee%plar5 da%a&es.

As re&ards Cri%inal Case Ns. "C-))-(77-$ and "C-))-(77)-$, accused ishere;5 ACF!ITTE fr failure f the prsecutin t pr0e his &uilt ;e5nd

reasna;le du;t.2*43

Once a&ain, appellants case is ;efre us fr ur cnsideratin raisin& the fll1in&errrs:

I

T$E CO!RT A F!O GRA


8/78

appellant 1as indicted %erel5 fr t1 cunts f acts f lasci0iusness 1hen the

apprpriate char&es shuld ha0e ;een t1 separate cunts f rape under Article

*66-A@* f the Re0ised Penal Cde. It %ust ;e re%e%;ered that Articles *66-A

and *66-8 are the a%end%ents intrduced t the Re0ised Penal Cde ;5 Repu;lic

Act N. 494 r the The Anti-Rape a1 f ()), 1hich tB effect n ** Oct;er

()). Dith these a%end%ents, rape 1as reclassified as a cri%e a&ainst persn and

nt %erel5 a cri%e a&ainst chastit5. Article *66-A f the Re0ised Penal Cde

states:

Art. *66-A. Rape Dhen and $1 C%%itted. Rape is c%%itted:

( 85 a %an 1h 2shall3 ha0e carnal Bn1led&e f a 1%an under an5 f the

fll1in& circu%stances:

a Thru&h frce, threat, r inti%idatin

; Dhen the ffended part5 is depri0ed f reasn r ther1ise

uncnscius

c 85 %eans f fraudulent %achinatin r &ra0e a;use f authrit5 and

d Dhen the ffended part5 is under t1el0e @(* 5ears f a&e r is

de%ented, e0en thu&h nne f the circu%stances %entined a;0e ;e

present.

* 85 an5 persn 1h, under an5 f the circu%stances %entined in para&raph (

heref, shall c%%it an act f seual assault ;5 insertin& his penis int antherpersns %uth r anal rifice, r an5 instru%ent r ;?ect int the &enital r analrifice f anther persn.

The first para&raph f Article *66-A refers t the traditinal cncept f rape that

is, ha0in& seual intercurse 1ith a 1%an a&ainst her 1ill. The secnd para&raph,

n the ther hand, is cate&ri=ed as rape ;5 seual assault.2*93

In the case fPeople v. 2oriano,2*63appellant therein 1as char&ed 1ith (4 cunts f

rape ;5 seual assault fr ha0in& inserted his fin&er inside the pri0ate r&an f his

%inr dau&hter. After re0ie1in& the recrds f said case, 1e ad?ud&ed appellanttherein &uilt5 f (* cunts rape ;5 seual assault, ;earin& in %ind the epanded

definitin f rape under Repu;lic Act N. 494.

Su;seuentl5, inPeople v. Palma,2*3appellant therein 1as char&ed 1ith si cunts

f ualified rape c%%itted ;et1een the secnd 1eeB f Oct;er ()) and the

first 1eeB f N0e%;er ()). This case 1as ;ru&ht ;efre us n aut%atic
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn27


9/78

appeal in 0ie1 f the death sentence i%psed ;5 the trial curt. It %ust ;e nted

that t1 f the char&es arse fr% appellants acts f insertin& his fin&er int the

0a&ina f his 0icti%. The first f such incidents happened durin& the secnd 1eeB

f Oct;er ()) 1hen appellant inserted his thu%; int the 0icti%s 0a&inal

rifice. Then, s%eti%e durin& the first 1eeB f N0e%;er ()), appellant

inserted his %iddle fin&er int the 0a&ina f the pri0ate c%plainant. In dispsin&

said case, 1e declared

In Cri%inal Case N. (, the first incident f insertin f appellants fin&er

int the 0icti%s 0a&ina durin& the secnd 1eeB f Oct;er ()) culd nl5 render

appellant &uilt5 f an act f lasci0iusness. The secnd incident f the insertin fappellants %iddle fin&er, h1e0er, durin& the first 1eeB f N0e%;er ()),

cnstituted cnsu%%ated rape thru&h seual assault under Repu;lic Act N.

494 r the The Anti-Rape a1 f ()), 1hich tB effect n ** Oct;er ()) .2*3

Dith these precedents, it is clear that the insertin f nes fin&er int the &enital ranal rifice f anther persn cnstitutes rape ;5 seual assault and nt %erel5 an

act f lasci0iusness liBe 1hat 1as errneusl5 char&ed in this case. "uch as 1e

1ant t punish appellant fr his appallin& acts t1ard AAA in Cri%inal Cases Ns.

"C-))-(779 and "C-))-(776, 1e are en?ined ;5 ur pri%rdial dut5 t ;ser0e

appellants cnstitutinall5 &uaranteed ri&ht t ;e infr%ed f the char&es a&ainst

hi%. Certainl5, 1e cannt all1 ursel0es t ;e the nes t perpetrate the denial f

appellants ri&ht t due prcess. $e cannt ;e punished fr an ffense &ra0er than

that 1ith 1hich he 1as char&ed.2*)3

In his 8rief, appellant in0Bes the settled rule that under ur ?urisdictin, an

accused is presu%ed inncent until pr0en &uilt5 and t 0erc%e this

presu%ptin, the prsecutin %ust esta;lish the &uilt f an accused ;e5nd

reasna;le du;t. $e cntends that in this case, the fact that the prsecutin

presented AAA as a hstile 1itness casts du;t as t the culpa;ilit5 f

appellant. $e als insists that the testi%n5 f AAA 1as uncn0incin& and 0a&ue

and pints t the fll1in& prtins f her state%ent in the 1itness stand:

F. Dh 1as raped ;5 8eni&n /etalin

A. "e, %aa%.

F. Dhen 1as @sic 5u raped ;5 8eni&n /etalin
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn29


10/78

A. I cannt recall an5%re, %aa%.

F. Culd it ;e in the 5ear ()))

A. Yes, %aa%.

F. Culd it ;e in the %nth f "arch

A. Yes, %aa%.

F. Dhere did the alle&ed rapin& incident tB place

A. In ur huse.

F. Dhere is 5ur huse lcated

A.

>>> Street, >>> Cit5.

F. $1 %an5 ti%es 1ere 5u raped in "arch ()))

A. Three @4 ti%es.

F. Is it n the sa%e date r n different dates f "arch ()))

A. Sa%e dates, %aa%.

F. Are 5u sure f that

A. Yes, %aa%.

PROS. SIAO:

I 1uld liBe t re%ind 5u a&ain "ada% Ditness that 5u are under ath and 5u

can ;e held lia;le fr tellin& a lie.

F. Dhat ti%e 1as the first rape c%%itted

A. It 1as then in the afternn after %5 %ther arri0ed.

F. Dhat ti%e did 5ur %ther arri0ed n that afternn

A. 9:++ p.%.

F. Dhat a;ut the secnd rape, 1hat ti%e 1as it

A. I cannt recall the ti%e an5%re.


11/78

F. Dhat a;ut the third rape

A. I cannt recall an5%re, %aa%.

F. 8ut all in the 5ear ())) f "arch

A. Yes, %aa%.24+3

The see%in& reluctance f AAA, as punctuated ;5 appellant, is precisel5 ne

f the principal %ti0atins 1hich prpelled ur le&islature t reclassif5 the cri%e

f rape as a cri%e a&ainst persn. As eplained ;5 Cn&ress1%an u= Re5es

8aBuna1a durin& her spnsrship speech f the $use 8ill N. 6*69 1hich

e0entuall5 ;eca%e Repu;lic Act N. 494This reclassificatin is necessar5 ;ecause under the eistin& la1, nl5 the 0icti%

can file a c%plaint, if she 1ishes, r her parents, r &randparents in that rder,1hich is 0er5 restricti0e. The ;ill n1 prescri;es that an5 citi=en can file a

c%plaint, e0en if the c%plainant %a5 nt ;e the 0icti%, r clse relati0e f the

0icti%. This is the si&nificance f the chan&e that intends t ;rin& the cri%inal tthe ;ar f ?ustice e0en if the 0icti% %a5 nt decide t c%plain due t fear, sha%e,

r fr ther reasns.24(3

Thus, despite the clai%ed disinterest f AAA in pursuin& the char&es a&ainstappellant, the chice f 1hether the cases 1uld prsper 1as n ln&er hers

alne. 8esides, at the ti%e AAA 1as presented as a 1itness, al%st three 5ears had

alread5 lapsed. E0ents %ust ha0e taBen place r influence %i&ht ha0e ;een eerted

upn her that culd ha0e 1eaBened her resl0e t seeB ?ustice fr 1hat 1as dne t

her. $1e0er, the fact re%ains that AAA ne0er cate&ricall5 denied in pen curt

the char&es she hurled at appellant.On the cntrar5, 1hen AAA 1as su;?ected t

crss-ea%inatin, she affir%ed that appellant had indeed raped her, thus:

CO!RT:

F. 5u Bn1 1h5 5u 1ere @sic here, "ada% Ditness

A. Yes, sir.

F. Dh5
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn31


12/78


13/78

A. Yes, sir.

F. $e 1as ttall5 naBed then

A. Yes, sir.

F. 5u ha0e a nei&h;r, "ada% Ditness

A. Yes, sir.

F. It happened at a;ut (:++ t *:++ in the afternn, "ada% Ditness

A. Yes, sir.

F. Yu did nt shut fr help, "ada% Ditness

A. N, sir.

F. Dh5

A. I 1as afraid ;ecause he threatened %e.

F. $1 did he threaten 5u

A. $e tld %e nt t reprt the %atter t an5;d5.

F. Dhen did 5u finall5 decide t disclse 1hat happened t 5u t an5ne,

"ada% Ditness

A. It 1as n @sic ())), t %5 %ther, ;ut I cannt recall the date.

F. Dh5 did 5u disclse the sa%e t 5ur %ther

A. I 1as afraid f %5 father.

F. Dhen 5u stated in 5ur state%ent that a certain Paul 1itnessed the incident,

1hen 1as that

A. "arch ())).

F. Dhile 5ur father 1as rapin& 5u

A. $e sa1 the incident ;ecause he 1as then 1rBin& at ur huse.


14/78

F. Yu stated in 5ur affida0it that 5ur father 1as n tp f 5u 1hen Paul see

@sic 5u

A. Yes, sir.

F. 8ut at the ti%e 1hen Paul sa1 5ur father n tp f 5u, his penis 1as nt 5etinserted in t 5ur 0a&ina

A. Nt 5et, sir.24*3

C%ple%entar5 t AAAs ral testi%n5, she cnfir%ed the s1rn state%ent 1hich

she eecuted ;efre SPO7 Espiritu n *6 "arch ())) upn redirect ea%inatin

;5 the prsecutr. As 1e had elucidated in the case fPeople v. 2ervano,2443the

e0idence 1hich shuld ;e cnsidered ;5 the curt in cri%inal cases need nt ;e

li%ited t the state%ents %ade in pen curt rather, it shuld include all

dcu%ents, affida0its r s1rn state%ents f the 1itnesses, and ther supprtin&

e0idence. De eplained

2D3hen a s1rn state%ent has ;een fr%all5 ffered as e0idence, it fr%s

an inte&ral part f the prsecutin e0idence 1hich shuld nt ;e i&nred fr it

c%ple%ents and c%pletes the testi%n5 n the 1itness stand. A s1rnstate%ent is a 1ritten declaratin f facts t 1hich the declarant has s1rn ;efre

an fficer authri=ed t ad%inister aths. This ath 0ests credi;ilit5 and

trust1rthiness n the dcu%ent. The fact that a 1itness fails t reiterate, durin&trial, the cntents f his s1rn state%ent shuld nt affect his credi;ilit5 and

render the s1rn state%ent useless and insi&nificant, as ln& as it is presented as

e0idence in pen curt. This is nt t sa5, h1e0er, that the s1rn state%ent

shuld ;e &i0en %re pr;ati0e 0alue than the actual testi%n5. Rather, the s1rnstate%ent and the pen curt declaratins %ust ;e e0aluated and ea%ined

t&ether in totos that a full and thru&h deter%inatin f the %erits f the case

%a5 ;e achie0ed. Gi0in& 1ei&ht t a 1itness ral testi%n5 durin& the trialshuld nt %ean ;ein& ;li0ius t the ther pieces f a0aila;le e0idence such as

the s1rn state%ent. In liBe %anner, the curt cannt &i0e pr;ati0e 0alue t the

s1rn state%ent t the eclusin f the ral testi%n5. In e0er5 case, the curt

shuld re0ie1, assess and 1ei&h the ttalit5 f the e0idence presented ;5 theparties. .2473


15/78

In this case, AAAs s1rn state%ent 1hich fr%s part f the recrds f this case

supplied the details f the incidents she eperienced durin& thse fateful da5s in

"arch ())), thus:

1 3 no ang dahilan at narito 4a ngayon sa aming tanggapan at nagbibigay ng

isang malayang salaysay5

2 3 Para po isumbong at ipa4ulong ang tatay 4o na tatlong beses a4ong nirape at

dala)ang beses na ipinaso4 and daliri niya sa ari 4o.

1 3 2ino ba ang tatay mo na sinasabi mo na nagrape sa iyo ng tatlong beses5

2 3 2iya po si Benigno Fetalino y Gabaldon, %6 taong gulang, )alang trabaho at

na4atira din po sa 777 2t., 777 City.

1 3 8ailan, saan at anong oras nangyari ang sinasabi mong pangrerape na

gina)a sa iyo ng tatay mo5

2 3 Noon pong Mar+h 6", 66, 69, 6#, 6$, "!!!, lahat po ay mga alauna

hanggang alas dos ng hapon, sa mismo pong bahay namin sa 7772t., 777 City.

1 3 1unay mo bang ama ang sinasasabi mong tatay mo na nagrape sa iyo ngmaraming beses5

2 3 0po.1 3 Maari mo bang ituro sa a4in ang sinasabi mong tatay mo na nagrape sa iyo5

2 3 2iya po. :ffiant pointing to ne Benigno Fetalino y Gabaldon, %6 years old,;obless of 777 2t., 777 City.G 8NG MG2=2=MB0NG, PP1?IN 8I1, P1I N NG NN?

M0. Noon pong Mar+h 66, "!!!, pagdating 4o po uli galing es4)ela, ay ganonpo ulit ang gina)a niya, ipinaso4 po uli ang daliri niya sa ari 4o, natata4ot po


16/78

a4o 4aya hindi po a4o sumisiga) at hindi rin po a4o nagsusumbong, 4asi ba4a

nga patayin niya 4aming lahat. Ng pangatlong ara) po, Mar+h 69, "!!! ay

ganon po uli ang gina)a niya, pinaso4 po niya a4o sa 4)arto at tinutu4an ngbalisong, pero hinubad na po niya ang short 4o at inihiga a4o sa papag at

naghubad din po siya at pumatong sa a4in at ipinaso4 ang ari niya sa ari 4o,

hindi po a4o pumapalag dahil natata4ot po a4o dahil may ha)a4 siyang balisonghabang gumagala) siya sa ibaba) 4o. >ala po a4ong naga)a 4undi ang umiya4,

hindi po a4o ma4apagsumbong dahil sa panana4ot niya na papatayin

4ami. 1apos po ng Mar+h 6#, "!!! uli ng hapon ay pinaso4 ulit niya a4o at ganonpo ulit, inalis niya ang short 4o at pumatong sa a4in, ng na4apatong po siya ay

biglang pumaso4 si 8uya Pol, iyon po yong 4arpintero na gumaga)a ng bahay

naming at na4ita 4ami, 4aya po biglang tumigil ang tatay 4o, at lumabas na siya

pero sinabihan a4o ulit na hu)ag magsusumbong dahil papatayin 4ami. 'indi parin po a4o nagsumbong, 4aya 4ahapon po, Mar+h 6$, "!!! ay inulit na naman

niya ang ginaga)a niyang pangrerape sa a4in. 1apos 4agabi nga po ng )ala

ang tatay 4o ay nagpunta sa amin si 8uya Pol at 4inausap ang nanay 4o at

narinig 4o ng sabihin niya sa nanay 4o na na4ita niya ang tatay 4o nana4apatong sa a4in sa 4)arto. Pagalis po ni 8uya Pol ay agad a4ong 4inausap

ng nanay 4o at tinanong, 4aya po sinabi 4o na sa 4anya, pero ang sinabi 4o po aydaliri lang ang ginagamit ng tatay 4o, natata4ot po 4asi a4o na ba4a patayin

4ami ng tatay 4o. gad pong pumunta ang nanay 4o sa Barangay at nagsumbong,

4aya po hinuli siya ng Barangay at dinala 4ami dito sa pulis.[35]

A&ainst the cate&rical state%ents f AAA, appellant culd nl5 ffer the

defense f denial and pint t 888 as the ;rains ;ehind the institutin f these

cri%inal char&es a&ainst hi%. Such ;are-faced defense is ;0iusl5 insufficient t

0erc%e AAAs cate&rical clai% f ;ein& raped and seuall5 %lested ;5

appellant. The rule is settled that a&ainst the psiti0e identificatin ;5 the pri0ate

c%plainant, the %ere denials f an accused cannt pre0ail t 0erc%e cn0ictin

;5 the trial curt.2463

Indeed, appellant culd nt ffer an5 plausi;le reasn 1hich culd ha0e

i%pelled AAA t ;rin& these serius char&es a&ainst hi%. All he culd %uster 1ast clai% in the trial curt that 888 1as furius at hi% and that the t1 f the%

en&a&ed in freuent fi&hts. T ur %ind, such cntentin is una0ailin&. Althu&h

888 ad%itted that she 1as %ad at appellant fr the ph5sical in?uries he inflicted

upn her, still, she stated that 1hat dr0e her t issue her s1rn state%ent n *6

"arch ())) 1as appellants rape f AAA./urther%re, a %ther liBe 888
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn36


17/78

certainl5 1uld nt epse her 1n dau&hter t the i&n%in5 f a rape trial si%pl5

t retaliate a&ainst her hus;and fr the trans&ressins, Bn1in& full5 1ell the life-

ln& sti&%a and scars that such a pu;lic trial culd ;rin&.243Such selfish %ti0e n

the part f a %ther runs cunter t her natural instinct t prtect her ffsprin&fr% all Binds f har% and t safe&uard the latters 1ell-;ein&.

De, h1e0er, sustain the appellate curts acuittal f appellant in Cri%inal

Cases N. "C-))-(77-$ and "C-))-(77)-$. It %ust ;e re%e%;ered that each

and e0er5 char&e f rape is a separate and distinct cri%e s that each f the ther

rape char&es shuld ;e pr0en ;e5nd reasna;le du;t.243Thus, it is incu%;ent

n the prsecutin t present the uantu% f prf necessar5 fr the cn0ictin f

an accused.

In this case, 1e ha0e &ne 0er the testi%n5 f AAA and her s1rn

state%ent and cannt a&ree in the trial curts cnclusin that appellants &uilt had

;een sufficientl5 esta;lished. AAAs testi%n5 pertainin& t the secnd and third

incidents f rape %erel5 cnsists f the fll1in&:

F. Dhat a;ut the secnd rape, 1hat did he d t 5u

A. The sa%e.

F. "eanin& he undressed 5u and he inserted his pri0ate r&an t 5ur pri0ate

r&an

A. Yes, %aa%.

F. Dhat a;ut the third rape, h1 did he did @sic it t 5u

A. The sa%e prcedure, %aa%.24)3

Such lacnic respnses n the part f AAA t the prsecutrs ueries are

&rssl5 inadeuate t sustain appellants cn0ictin. $er ans1ers durin& the

prsecutrs ea%inatin are utterl5 lacBin& in %aterial details that 1uld 1arrant a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/174472.htm#_ftn39


18/78

findin& f &uilt ;e5nd reasna;le du;t.27+3As 1e ha0e held in the case fPeople

v. MarahayDhen prdded t specif5 the acts dne t her, she stated that her father usedher. N ther detail 1as e0Bed fr% her t sh1 the attendant ele%ents that

cnstitute rape, the cri%e char&ed.Such ;are state%ents cannt suffice t esta;lishaccused-appellants &uilt 1ith the reuired uantu% f e0idence. 27(3

In this re&ard, 1e cannt 0ere%phasi=e the need fr the prsecutin t asB

the necessar5 pr;in& uestins in rder t elicit fr% a 1itness crucial details t

esta;lish the ele%ents f the cri%e char&ed.

iBe1ise, AAAs s1rn state%ent cannt ;e the ;asis fr appellants cn0ictin fr

the secnd and third incidents f rape. T recall, AAA declared in said state%ent

that the rape 1hich alle&edl5 ccurred n *7 "arch ())) 1as the ne 1itnessed ;5

their carpenter Fuia%;a. $1e0er, n the 1itness stand, she declared that 1hen

Fuia%;a sa1 appellant n tp f her, appellant had nt 5et inserted his penis int

her 0a&ina. In fact, her testi%n5 des nt e0en state 1hether appellants penis e0en

tuched her 0a&ina at all. In the a;sence f a state%ent that appellants penis

tuched e0en ?ust her labia ma;ora, 1e ha0e t acuit hi% fr the *7 "arch

())) incident.

As re&ards the rape purprtedl5 c%%itted n *9 "arch ())), AAAs s1rn

state%ent, liBe her testi%n5, cntained a %ere cnclusin that she 1as raped ;5

appellant n that da5 1hich 1e find insufficient t supprt a findin& f appellants

&uilt.

De n1 turn t the apprpriate penalties that shuld ;e i%psed upnappellant fr the t1 cunts f acts f lasci0iusness and ne cunt f

rape. Appellant cntends, and the Curt f Appeals and the Office f the Slicitr

General a&ree 1ith hi%, that the trial curt erred in appreciatin& AAAs %inrit5 in

deter%inin& the i%psa;le penalties n hi%. De find %erit in this cntentin.


19/78

Dhile it is alle&ed in the Infr%atins that AAA 1as nl5 (6 5ears ld at the

ti%e the cri%es char&ed 1ere c%%itted, ne0ertheless, the prsecutin failed t

su;stantiate said alle&atin. In esta;lishin& the %inrit5 f the alle&ed 0icti%, thecurts are t ;e &uided ;5 ur prnunce%ent in the case f People v. Pruna,27*3t

1it:

(. The ;est e0idence t pr0e the a&e f the ffended part5 is an ri&inal r

certified true cp5 f the certificate f li0e ;irth f such part5.

*. In the a;sence f a certificate f li0e ;irth, si%ilar authentic dcu%entssuch as ;aptis%al certificate and schl recrds 1hich sh1 the date f ;irth f

the 0icti% 1uld suffice t pr0e a&e.

4. If the certificate f li0e ;irth r authentic dcu%ent is sh1n t ha0e ;een

lst r destr5ed r ther1ise una0aila;le, the testi%n5, if clear and credi;le, f

the 0icti%s %ther r a %e%;er f the fa%il5 either ;5 affinit5 r cnsan&uinit51h is ualified t testif5 n %atters respectin& pedi&ree such as the eact a&e r

date f ;irth f the ffended part5 pursuant t Sectin 7+, Rule (4+ f the Rules

n E0idence shall ;e sufficient under the fll1in& circu%stances:

a. If the 0icti% is alle&ed t ;e ;el1 4 5ears f a&e and 1hat is su&ht t

;e pr0ed is that she is less than 5ears ld

;. If the 0icti% is alle&ed t ;e ;el1 5ears f a&e and 1hat is su&ht t ;epr0ed is that she is less than (* 5ears ld

c. If the 0icti% is alle&ed t ;e ;el1 (* 5ears f a&e and 1hat is su&ht t

;e pr0ed is that she is less than ( 5ears ld.

7. In the a;sence f a certificate f li0e ;irth, authentic dcu%ent, r the

testi%n5 f the 0icti%s %ther r relati0es cncernin& the 0icti%s a&e, the

c%plainants testi%n5 1ill suffice pr0ided that it is epressl5 and clearl5

ad%itted ;5 the accused.

9. It is the prsecutin that has the ;urden f pr0in& the a&e f the ffendedpart5. The failure f the accused t ;?ect t the testi%nial e0idence re&ardin&a&e shall nt ;e taBen a&ainst hi%.2743

In the case at ;ar, 1e cannt si%pl5 rel5 n 888s unsu;stantiated clai%

1ith re&ard t AAAs a&e, particularl5 since the lss f her ;irth certificate 1as nt


20/78

sufficientl5 esta;lished. De cannt 0ere%phasi=e the i%prtance f fiin& 1ith

eactitude AAAs a&e, fr under Article *66-8 f the Re0ised Penal Cde, rape ;5

seual intercurse is punisha;le ;5 the supre%e penalt5 f death in case the 0icti%

is under ( 5ears f a&e andthe ffender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,

&uardian, relati0e ;5 cnsan&uinit5 r affinit5 1ithin the third ci0il de&ree, r the

c%%n-la1 spuse f the parent f the 0icti%. The se0erit5, per%anence and

irre0ersi;le nature f the penalt5 prescri;ed ;5 la1 %aBes the decisin-%aBin&

prcess in capital ffenses, such as ualified rape, su;?ect t the %st eactin&

rules f prcedure and e0idence.2773

On the ther hand, the alternati0e circu%stance f relatinship under Article

(9 f the Re0ised Penal Cde shuld ;e cnsidered a&ainst appellant since in

cri%es a&ainst chastit5, liBe acts f lasci0iusness, relatinship is cnsidered

a&&ra0atin&.2793In this case, as it 1as clearl5 %entined in the Infr%atins and

ad%itted ;5 appellant that AAA is his dau&hter, their relatinship a&&ra0ated the

t1 char&es f acts f lasci0iusness.

Acts f lasci0iusness is punished under the Re0ised Penal Cde ;5prision

+orre++ional.Appl5in& the Indeter%inate Sentence a1, and taBin& int

cnsideratin the a&&ra0atin& circu%stance f relatinship, appellant shuld ;e

%ade t suffer an indeter%inate prisn ter% f si @6 %nths f arresto mayor, as

%ini%u%, t si @6 5ears fprision +orre++ional, as %ai%u%. In additin,

appellant is t pa5 the a%unt f P4+,+++.++ as %ral da%a&es fr each cunt f

acts f lasci0iusness.2763

Dith respect t Cri%inal Case N. "-))-(77-$, ;ecause f the

prsecutins failure t esta;lish 1ith certaint5 that AAA 1as still a %inr at the

ti%e the incestuus rape 1as c%%itted ;5 appellant, the apprpriate penalt5

shuld nl5 ;e re+lusion perpetua in accrdance 1ith the first sentence f Article

*66-8 f the Re0ised Penal Cde 1hich states that rape under para&raph ( f

Article *66-A, r rape ;5 seual intercurse, shall ;e punished ;5 re+lusion

perpetua. In additin t this, and cnsistent 1ith the pre0ailin& ?urisprudence,273appellant is als held lia;le t AAA in the a%unt f P9+,+++.++ as ci0il

inde%nit5, P9+,+++.++ as %ral da%a&es, and P*9,+++.++ as ee%plar5 da%a&es.

WHEREFORE, pre%ises cnsidered, the ecisin dated 4( "a5 *++6 f

the Curt f Appeals is AFFIRMED 1ith MODIFICATIONS:

A. Appellant 8eni&n /etalin 5 Ga;aldn is here;5 fund G!ITY:


21/78

(. In Cri%inal Case N. "C-))-(779, f acts f lasci0iusness and he is sentenced

t suffer the indeter%inate prisn ter% f si @6 %nths f arresto mayor, as

%ini%u%, t si @6 5ears fprision +orre++ional, as %ai%u% and t pa5 AAAthe a%unt f T$IRTY T$O!SAN @P4+,+++.++ PESOS as %ral da%a&es

*. In Cri%inal Case N. "C-))-(776, f acts f lasci0iusness and he is sentenced

t suffer the indeter%inate prisn ter% f si @6 %nths f arresto mayor, as the

%ini%u%, t si @6 5ears fprision +orre++ional, as %ai%u% and t pa5 AAA

the a%unt f T$IRTY T$O!SAN @P4+,+++.++ PESOS as %ral da%a&es

4. In Cri%inal Case N. "C-))-(77-$, f rape thru&h seual intercurse, and

he is sentenced t suffer the penalt5 f re+lusion perpetuaand t pa5 AAA the

a%unt f /I/TY T$O!SAN @P9+,+++.++ PESOS as ci0il inde%nit5, /I/TY

T$O!SAN @P9+,+++.++ PESOS as %ral da%a&es, and TDENTY-/I


22/78

where he found e!plo'!ent and eventuall' started his own usiness, !arried a /ilipina, with who!he had four children. "n &ul' 4, 1(0(, at the age of , he filed a verified petition to e ad!itted as a/ilipino citi$en under C.A. o. 43), otherwise nown as the Revised aturali$ation aw, asa!ended. #etitioner, after stating his 5ualifications as re5uired in 62, and lac of the dis5ualificationsenu!erated in 6) of the law, stated 7

13. That he has heretofore !ade 8a9 petition for citi$enship under the provisions of etter of*nstruction o. 23: with the Special Co!!ittee on aturali$ation, "ffice of the Solicitor;eneral, anila, doceted as SC Case o. :)133, ut the sa!e was not acted uponowing to the fact that the said Special Co!!ittee on aturali$ation was not reconstitutedafter the /eruar', 1(0 revolution such that processing of petitions for naturali$ation 'ad!inistrative process was suspendedillaruel on /eruar' 2), 1(33, no !arriage license had eenre5uired in accordance with Art. 3 of the Civil Code ecause petitioner and Ra!ona >illaruel hadeen living together as husand and wife since 1() without the enefit of !arriage. This, accordingto the State, elies his clai! that when he started living with his wife in 1(), the' had alread' een!arried.

The State also argued that, as shown ' petitionerDs *!!igrant Certificate of Residence, 1:petitionerresided at -&.. Basa Street, *loilo,- ut he did not include said address in the petition.

"n ove!er 1, 1((, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision which, as alread' noted,reversed the trial court and denied petitionerDs application for naturali$ation. *t ruled that due to thei!portance naturali$ation cases, the State is not precluded fro! raising 5uestions not presented inthe lower court and rought up for the first ti!e on appeal. 11The appellate court held%

As correctl' oserved ' the "ffice of the Solicitor ;eneral, petitioner "ng Chia failed tostate in this present petition for naturali$ation his other na!e, -"RET" C@*A ";,- which

na!e appeared in his previous application under etter of *nstruction o. 23:. a!es andpseudon'!s !ust e stated in the petition for naturali$ation and failure to include the sa!e!ilitates against a decision in his favor. . . This is a !andator' re5uire!ent to allow thosepersons who now 8petitioner9 ' those other na!es to co!e forward and infor! theauthorities of an' legal oection which !ight adversel' affect his application for citi$enship.

/urther!ore, "ng Chia failed to disclose in his petition for naturali$ation that he for!erl'resided in -&.. Basa St., *loilo- and -Ali!odian, *loilo.- Section 3 of the Revisedaturali$ation aw re5uires the applicant to state in his petition -his present and for!erplaces of residence.- This re5uire!ent is !andator' and failure of the petitioner to co!pl'with it is fatal to the petition. As eplained ' the Court, the reason for the provision is to give

the pulic, as well as the investigating agencies of the govern!ent, upon the pulication ofthe petition, an opportunit' to e infor!ed thereof and voice their oections against thepetitioner. B' failing to co!pl' with this provision, the petitioner is depriving the pulic andsaid agencies of such opportunit', thus defeating the purpose of the law. . .

"ng Chia had not also conducted hi!self in a proper and irreproachale !anner when helived+in with his wife for several 'ears, and sired four children out of wedloc. *t has een theconsistent ruling that the -applicantDs 0+'ear cohaitation with his wife without the enefit ofclerg' and egetting ' her three children out of wedloc is a conduct far fro! eing properand irreproachale as re5uired ' the Revised aturali$ation aw-, and therefore dis5ualifieshi! fro! eco!ing a citi$en of the #hilippines ' naturali$ation . . .

astl', petitioner "ng ChiaDs alleged annual inco!e in 1(1 of #,:::.::, eclusive ofonuses, co!!issions and allowances, is not lucrative inco!e. @is failure to file an inco!eta return -ecause he is not liale for inco!e ta 'et- confir!s that his inco!e is low. . . -*tis not onl' that the person having the e!plo'!ent gets enough for his ordinar' necessities inlife. *t !ust e shown that the e!plo'!ent gives one an inco!e such that there is anappreciale !argin of his inco!e over epenses as to e ale to provide for an ade5uatesupport in the event of une!plo'!ent, sicness, or disailit' to wor and thus avoid oneDs
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_127240_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_127240_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_127240_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_127240_2000.html#fnt11


24/78


25/78


26/78


27/78

JCONTRARY TO AD.J2*3

"n ove!er 1, 1((, appellant was arraigned and, with assistance ofcounsel, pleaded not guilt' to the charge.Trial on the !erits then ensued.

The first witness for the prosecution was S#") arcelo Tipa', a !e!erof the police force of >illaverde, ueva >i$ca'a. @e testified that at around1:%1 a.!. of Septe!er 24, 1((, he received a tip fro! an unna!edinfor!er aout the presence of a !ariuana plantation, allegedl' owned 'appellant at Sitio Bulan, *ung, >illaverde, ueva >i$ca'a.J)The prohiitedplants were allegedl' planted close to appellantDs hut.#olice *nspector

Aleandro R. #arungao, Chief of #olice of >illaverde, ueva >i$ca'a thenfor!ed a reaction tea! fro! his operatives to verif' the report. The tea! was

co!posed of S#") arcelo . Tipa', S#"2 oel >. iunao, S#"2 #edro S.orales, S#"1 Ro!ulo ;. Toias and #"2 Alfel!er *. Balut.*nspector#arungao gave the! specific instructions to -uproot said !ariuana plants andarrest the cultivator of sa!e.J4

At approi!atel' %:: oDcloc A.. the following da', said police tea!,acco!panied ' their infor!er, left for the site where the !ariuana plantswere allegedl' eing grown.After a three+hour, uphill tre fro! the nearestaranga' road, the police operatives arrived at the place pinpointed ' their

infor!ant.The police found appellant alone in his nipa hut.The', then,proceeded to loo around the area where appellant had his 'ainginand sawseven 839 five+foot high, flowering !ariuana plants in two rows, approi!atel'2 !eters fro! appellantDs hut. J#"2 Balut ased appellant who owned theprohiited plants and, according to Balut, the latter ad!itted that the' werehis.JThe police uprooted the seven !ariuana plants, which weighed 2.1(4ilogra!s.J3The police too photos of appellant standing eside the cannaisplants.J0Appellant was then arrested."ne of the plants, weighing 1.:(:

ilogra!s, was sent to the #hilippine ational #olice Cri!e aorator' inBa'o!ong, ueva >i$ca'a for anal'sis. J(*nspector #rev' /aros uwis, theCri!e aorator' forensic anal'st, testified that upon !icroscopic ea!inationof said plant, she found c'stolitic hairs containing calciu! caronate, apositive indication for !ariuana.J1:She net conducted a che!icalea!ination, the results of which confir!ed her initial i!pressions.She foundas follows%
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn10


28/78

JSPECI"EN S!8"ITTE: Eh JAJ - (.+)+ &ra%s f uprted suspected %ari?uana

plant placed inside a 1hite sacB 1ith %arBin&s.

J/ININGS: Fualitati0e ea%inatin cnducted n the a;0e stated speci%en &a0e POSITIillaverde. "n the wa', a certain Kio #ascua, a aranga'peace officer of Baranga' Saw!ill, acco!panied the police officers.#ascua,who ore a grudge against hi!, ecause of his refusal to participate in thefor!erDs illegal logging activities, threatened hi! to ad!it owning the!ariuana, otherwise he would -e put in a ad situation.- J1(At the police
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn19


29/78

head5uarters, appellant reiterated that he new nothing aout the !ariuanaplants sei$ed ' the police.J2:

"n cross+ea!ination, appellant declared that there were ten other

houses around the vicinit' of his'aingin,the nearest house eing 1:: !etersawa'.J21The latter house elonged to one Carlito 8ito9 #ascua, an uncle of thearanga' peace officer who had a grudge against hi!.The spot where the!ariuana plants were found was located etween his house and Carlito#ascuaDs.J22

The prosecution presented S#") Tipa' as its reuttal witness.@istesti!on' was offered to reut appellantDs clai! that the !ariuana plantswere not planted in the lot he was cultivating. J2)Tipa' presented a setch he

!ade,J24which showed the location of !ariuana plants in relation to the oldand new nipa huts of appellant, as well as the closest neighor.According toTipa', the !ariuana plot was located 4: !eters awa' fro! the old hut of>alde$ and 2: !eters distant fro! the hut of Carlito #ascua.J2Tipa'ad!itted on cross+ea!ination that no surve'or acco!panied hi! when he!ade the !easure!ents.J2@e further stated that his asis for clai!ing thatappellant was the owner or planter of the sei$ed plants was the infor!ationgiven hi! ' the police infor!er and the proi!it' of appellantDs hut to thelocation of said plants.J23

/inding appellantDs defense insipid, the trial court held appellant liale ascharged for cultivation and ownership of !ariuana plants as follows%

JD$ERE/ORE, findin& the accused G!ITY ;e5nd reasna;le du;t f culti0atin&

%ari?uana plants punisha;le under sectin ) f the an&erus ru&s Act f ()*, as

a%ended, accused is here;5 sentenced t death ;5 lethal in?ectin.Csts a&ainst the

accused.

JSO ORERE.J2*3

Appellant assigns the following errors for our consideration%

I
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn28


30/78


31/78

/or the appellee, the "ffice of the Solicitor ;eneral argues that the recordsclearl' show that there was no search !ade ' the police tea!, in the firstplace.The "S; points out that the !ariuana plants in 5uestion were grown inan unfenced lot and as each grew aout five 89 feet tall, the' were visile

fro! afar, and were, in fact, i!!ediatel' spotted ' the police officers whenthe' reached the site.The sei$ed !ariuana plants were, thus, in plain view ofthe police officers.The instant case !ust, therefore, e treated as awarrantless lawful search under the -plain view- doctrine.

The courta 4uoupheld the validit' of the search and confiscation !ade 'the police tea! on the finding that%

J...It see%s there 1as n need fr an5 search 1arrant. The plice%en 1ent t the plantatin site

%erel5 t %aBe a 0erificatin. Dhen the5 fund the said plants, it 1as t %uch t epect the%t appl5 fr a search 1arrant. In 0ie1 f the re%teness f the plantatin site @the5 had t 1alB

fr si hurs ;acB and frth and the dan&ers lurBin& in the area if the5 sta5ed 0erni&ht, the5

had a 0alid reasn t cnfiscate the said plants upn disc0er5 1ithut an5 search

1arrant. "re0er, the e0idence sh1s that the lt 1as nt le&all5 ccupied ;5 the accused and

there 1as n fence 1hich e0inced the ccupantKs desire t Beep trespassers ut. There 1as,

therefre, n pri0ac5 t prtect, hence, n search 1arrant 1as reuired.J24+3

The ConstitutionJ)1la's down the general rule that a search and sei$ure!ust e carried on the strength of a udicial warrant."therwise, the search

and sei$ure is dee!ed -unreasonale.- Evidence procured on the occasion ofan unreasonale search and sei$ure is dee!ed tainted for eing theproverial fruit of a poisonous tree and should e ecluded.J)2Such evidenceshall e inad!issile in evidence for an' purpose in an' proceeding. J))

*n the instant case, there was no search warrant issued ' a udge afterpersonal deter!ination of the eistence of proale cause./ro! thedeclarations of the police officers the!selves, it is clear that the' had at leastone 819 da' to otain a warrant to search appellantDs far!.Their infor!ant hadrevealed his na!e to the!.The place where the cannais plants were plantedwas pinpointed./ro! the infor!ation in their possession, the' could haveconvinced a udge that there was proale cause to ustif' the issuance of awarrant.But the' did not.*nstead, the' uprooted the plants and apprehendedthe accused on the ecuse that the trip was a good si hours andinconvenient to the!.He need not underscore that the protection against
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn33


32/78

illegal search and sei$ure is constitutionall' !andated and onl' under specificinstances are searches allowed without warrants. J)4The !antle of protectionetended ' the Bill of Rights covers oth innocent and guilt' alie againstan' for! of high+handedness of law enforcers, regardless of the

praiseworthiness of their intentions.

He find no reason to suscrie to Solicitor ;eneralDs contention that weappl' the -plain view- doctrine./or the doctrine to appl', the followingele!ents !ust e present%

8a9 a prior valid intrusion ased on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police arelegall' present in the pursuit of their official dutiesi$ca'a, Branch 23, in Cri!inalCase o. )1:, finding Ae >alde$ ' =ela Cru$, guilt' e'ond reasonaledout of violating Section ( of the =angerous =rugs Act of 1(32, andi!posing upon hi! the death penalt', is here' RE>ERSE= and SET AS*=E
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/129296.htm#_edn64


38/78

for insufficienc' of evidence.Appellant is ACMF*TTE=and orderedREEASE= i!!ediatel' fro! confine!ent unless held for another lawfulcause.

SO OR!ERE!.

#G.R. No. 1073.F&*rar 20, 1$$%.

CECILIA "ULUETA,petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS anALFRE!O MARTIN, respondents.

! E C I S I O N

MEN!O"A, J.:

This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affir!ingthe decision of the Regional Trial Court of anila 8Branch I9 which orderedpetitioner to return docu!ents and papers taen ' her fro! privaterespondents clinic without the latters nowledge and consent.

The facts are as follows%

#etitioner Cecilia Gulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo artin.

"n arch 2, 1(02, petitioner entered the clinic of her husand, a doctor of!edicine, and in the presence of her !other, a driver and private respondentssecretar', forcil' opened the drawers and cainet in her husands clinic andtoo 13 docu!ents consisting of private correspondence etween =r. artinand his alleged para!ours, greetings cards, cancelled checs, diaries, =r.artins passport, and photographs. The docu!ents and papers were sei$edfor use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for dis5ualification fro!the practice of !edicine which petitioner had filed against her husand.

=r. artin rought this action elow for recover' of the docu!ents andpapers and for da!ages against petitioner. The case was filed with theRegional Trial Court of anila, Branch I, which, after trial, rendered udg!entfor private respondent, =r. Alfredo artin, declaring hi! the capitalNeclusiveowner of the properties descried in paragraph ) of plaintiffs Co!plaint orthose further descried in the otion to Return and Suppress and ordering


39/78


40/78


41/78

*ndeed the docu!ents and papers in 5uestion are inad!issile inevidence. The constitutional inunction declaring the privac' of co!!unicationand correspondence Jto e inviolale)is no less applicale si!pl' ecause itis the wife 8who thins herself aggrieved ' her husands infidelit'9 who is the

part' against who! the constitutional provision is to e enforced. The onl'eception to the prohiition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order Jfro!a court or when pulic safet' or order re5uires otherwise, as prescried 'law.4An' violation of this provision renders the evidence otained inad!issilefor an' purpose in an' proceeding.

The inti!acies etween husand and wife do not ustif' an' one of the! inreaing the drawers and cainets of the other and in ransacing the! for an'telltale evidence of !arital infidelit'. A person, ' contracting !arriage, does

not shed hisNher integrit' or his right to privac' as an individual and theconstitutional protection is ever availale to hi! or to her.

The law insures asolute freedo! of co!!unication etween the spouses' !aing it privileged. either husand nor wife !a' testif' for or against theother without the consent of the affected spouse while the !arriagesusists.either !a' e ea!ined without the consent of the other as to an'co!!unication received in confidence ' one fro! the other during the!arriage, save for specified eceptions.3But one thing is freedo! of

co!!unication< 5uite another is a co!pulsion for each one to share what onenows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the dut' of fidelit' thateach owes to the other.

HEREFORE, the petition for review is =E*E= for lac of !erit.

SO OR!ERE!.

G.R. No. 1+0224 Ma 1$, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs.5OEL 6ATAR a8a9 :;AIT:,appellant.

= E C * S * "

PER CURIAM
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm#_ftn7


42/78


43/78

the lu!er he had staced, and that *sael could use it. She noticed that appellantOs e'es were-reddish and sharp.- Appellant ased her where her husand was as he had so!ething i!portant totell hi!. &udil'nOs husand then arrived and appellant i!!ediatel' left and went towards the ac ofthe house of *sael.0

*n the evening of the sa!e da', *sael =awang arrived ho!e and found that the lights in her housewere off. She called out for her granddaughter, Kath'l'n Fa. The door to the ground floor wasopen. She noticed that the water container she ased Kath'l'n to fill up earlier that da' was stille!pt'. She went up the ladder to the second floor of the house to see if Kath'l'n was upstairs. Shefound that the door was tied with a rope, so she went down to get a nife. Hhile she groped in thedar, she felt a lifeless od' that was cold and rigid.(

*sael !oved her hand throughout the entire od'. She found out that it was the naed od' of hergranddaughter, Kath'l'n. She called for help. &udil'n and her husand arrived. *sael was given aflashlight ' &udil'n. She focused the ea! and saw Kath'l'n sprawled on the floor naed, with herintestines protruding out of her sto!ach. eanwhile, neighors had arrived to offer assistance. A

daughter of *sael, Cion, called the police.1:

At (%:: that evening, S#:4 elchor /aniswa received a report that a dead wo!an was found in*sael =awangOs house. Together with fellow police officers, /aniswa went to the house and foundthe naed od' of Kath'l'n Fa with !ultiple sta wounds.

The people in the vicinit' infor!ed the police officers that appellant was seen going down the ladderof the house of *sael =awang at approi!atel' 12%): p.!.

The police discovered the victi!Os panties, rassiere, deni! pants, ag and sandals eside hernaed cadaver at the scene of the cri!e, and the' found a dirt' white shirt splattered with lood

within : !eters fro! the house of *sael.

Hhen 5uestioned ' the police authorities, appellant denied an' nowledge of Kath'l'nsOsdeath,11however, he was placed under police custod'.

"n &ul' ), 1((0, appellant ased the police officers if he could relieve hi!self. #olice "fficer CesarAagan acco!panied hi! to the toilet around seven to ten !eters awa' fro! the police station.The' suddenl' heard so!eone shout in the *locano dialect, -agtara'P- 8@eOs running awa'P9. #olice"fficer "rlando anuel eited through the gate of the #olice Station and saw appellant runningawa'. Appellant was approi!atel' 3: !eters awa' fro! the station when #olice "fficer Aaganrecaptured hi!.12@e was charged with Rape with @o!icide. Hhen he was arraigned on &ul' 21,

1((0, appellant pleaded -not guilt'.-

After trial, appellant was convicted of the cri!e of9ape with Homicide, defined and penali$ed underArticle 2+A of the Revised #enal Code, as a!ended ' R.A. 0)), otherwise nown as the Anti+Rape aw of 1((3, and was accordingl', sentenced to8eath.

@ence, this auto!atic review pursuant to Article 43 of the Revised #enal Code, as a!ended. *n hisBrief, appellant assigns the following errors%


44/78

*

T@E TR*A C"FRT ;RA>E? ERRE= * ;*>*; FC@ HE*;@T T" T@E E>*=ECE#RESETE= B? T@E #R"SECFT*" "TH*T@STA=*; T@E*R ="FBT/FESS.

**

T@E TR*A C"FRT SER*"FS? ERRE= * "T ACMF*TT*; T@E ACCFSE=+A##EAT "/ T@E SER*"FS CR*E C@AR;E= =FE T" REAS"ABE ="FBT.

AppellantOs contentions are un!eritorious.

The issue regarding the crediilit' of the prosecution witnesses should e resolved againstappellant. This Court will not interfere with the udg!ent of the trial court in deter!ining the crediilit'of witnesses unless there appears in the record so!e fact or circu!stance of weight and influencewhich has een overlooed or the significance of which has een !isinterpreted.1)Hell+entrenched

is the rule that the findings of the trial court on crediilit' of witnesses are entitled to great weight onappeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a reea!ination if not the disturance ofthe sa!e< the reason eing that the for!er is in a etter and uni5ue position of hearing first hand thewitnesses and oserving their deport!ent, conduct and attitude.14Asent an' showing that the trialudge overlooed, !isunderstood, or !isapplied so!e facts or circu!stances of weight which wouldaffect the result of the case, the trial udgeOs assess!ent of crediilit' deserves the appellate courtOshighest respect.1Hhere there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution wereactuated ' i!proper !otive, their testi!onies are entitled to full faith and credit.1

The weight of the prosecutionOs evidence !ust e appreciated in light of the well+settled rule whichprovides that an accused can e convicted even if no e'ewitness is availale, as long as sufficient

circu!stantial evidence is presented ' the prosecution to prove e'ond dout that the accusedco!!itted the cri!e.13

Reference to the records will show that a total of eleven 8119 wounds, si 89 sta and five 89incised, were found on the victi!Os ado!en and ac, causing a portion of her s!all intestines tospill out of her od'.109igor mortisof the vicit!Os od' was co!plete when =r. Bartolo ea!ined thevicti! at (%:: a.!. on &ul' 1, 1((0. According to hi!, the ti!e of death !a' e approi!ated fro!etween nine 8(9 to twelve 8129 hours prior to the co!pletion ofrigor mortis.1(*n other words, theesti!ated ti!e of death was so!eti!e etween (%:: a.!. to 12%:: p.!. on &une ):, 1((0. This waswithin the ti!efra!e within which the lone presence of appellant luring in the house of *sael=awang was testified to ' witnesses.

*t should also e noted that, although the #ost!orte! Report ' the attending ph'sician, =r. #eEvan C. Bartolo, indicates that no h'!enal lacerations, contusions or he!ato!a were noted on thevicti!,2:=r. Bartolo discovered the presence of se!en in the vaginal canal of the victi!. =uring histesti!on', =r. Bartolo stated that the introduction of se!en into the vaginal canal could onl' e donethrough seual intercourse with the victi!.21*n addition, it is apparent fro! the pictures su!itted 'the prosecution that the seual violation of the victi! was !anifested ' a ruise and so!e swellingin her right forear! indicating resistance to the appellantOs assault on her virtue.22


45/78


46/78


47/78


48/78


49/78


50/78

Costs de oficio.

SO OR!ERE!.

G.R. No. $7+2+. A'r8 7, 1$$.

#E"#E "/ T@E #@**##*ES, plaintiff+appellee,vs.&"E SARTA;"=A ' B"CAE;RA, &*? BASCFQA ' AGARTE, >*CETE STA. AA ';FT*ERREG and &"@ ="E, accused+appellants.

The Solicitor ;eneral for plaintiff+appellee.

Ernesto . ai5ue$ for accused+appellants.

S?ABFS

1. REE=*A AH< E>*=ECE< /*;ER#R*TS< ABSECE T@ERE"/ ="ES "T E**ATE#"SS*B**T? T@AT ACCFSE= C"F= @A>E BEE AT SCEE "/ T@E CR*E. 7 Although Heagree with their opinion that a positive finding of !atching fingerprints has great significance, Hecannot sustain their theor' that fro! the negative findings in the fingerprint ea!ination conducted inthe course of the investigation in the instant case, it !ust e concluded that the' could not haveeen at the scene of the cri!e. egative findings do not at all ti!es lead to a valid conclusion forthere !a' e logical eplanations for the asence of identifiale latent prints other than their noteing present at the scene of the cri!e. "nl' latent fingerprints found on s!ooth surface are usefulfor purposes of co!parison in a cri!e laorator' ecause prints left on rough surfaces result indotted lines or roen lines instead of co!plete and continuous lines. Such ind of speci!en cannot

e relied upon in a fingerprint ea!ination. The latent fingerprints are actuall' oil' sustanceadhering to the surfaces of oects that co!e in contact with the fingers. B' their ver' nature, oil'sustances easil' spread such that when the fingers slide against the surface the' touch, noidentifiale latent print is left, onl' s!udges instead. ot all police investigators are aware of thenature of latent fingerprints so as to e guided accordingl' in deciding which oects to su!it forfingerprint lifting and ea!ination. oting the interpla' of !an' circu!stances involved in thesuccessful lifting and identification of proper latent fingerprints in a particular cri!e scene, theasence of one does not i!!ediatel' eli!inate the possiilit' that the accused+appellants couldhave een at the scene of the cri!e. The' !a' e there 'et the' had not left an' identifiale latentfingerprint. Besides, in the case at ar, onl' ten latent fingerprints are involved. The findings in thisparticular fingerprint ea!ination are not sufficient to case even ust a reasonale dout in their

finding of guilt for the cri!e charged.

2. *=.< *=.< *=ET*/*CAT*" "/ T@E ACCFSE=< #"*CE *E+F# "T REMF*RE= B? AH /"R#R"#ER *=ET*/*CAT*"< /ACE A= B"=? ">EET "/ ASSA*AT CREATE AST*;*#RESS*" " >*CT*. 7 Hhether or not there was a previous police line+up, the fact is thatthe' were positivel' identified at the trial. There is no law re5uiring a police line+up as essential to aproper identification. The co!plainantDs recognition of the accused+appellants as her attacerscannot e douted for she had during the carnal acts a!ple opportunit' to see the faces of the !en


51/78


52/78

-H@ERE/"RE, the court here' finds the accused &oel Sartagoda ' Bocanegra, &i!!' Bascoa8sic9 ' a$arte and >icente Sta. Ana ' ;utierre$ all guilt' e'ond reasonale dout as co+principalsof the cri!e of Roer' Hith Rape, defined and penali$ed in Article 2(4, paragraph 2 of the Revised#enal Code< there eing two aggravating circu!stances without an' !itigating circu!stance tooffset the sa!e, here' sentences each of the said accused to suffer the penalt' of Reclusion

#erpetua with the accessories provided for ' the law.

Each of the three accused is ordered to inde!nif' the offended part' >il!a de Belen the su! of#):,:::.::, and each of the! shall recogni$e the offspring if there e an'.

The said accused are liewise ordered to return the personal properties stolen or pa' its e5uivalenta!ount of #13,4(:.:: to Rogelio de Belen, the lawful owner thereof.

S" "R=ERE=.- 1

The facts of the case !a' e su!!ari$ed as follows%

*t was the evening of &ul' 2, 1(00 while Rogelio de Belen, his two daughters and his sister >il!a deBelen were sleeping in their house at Cala!a, aguna, when appellant roe in and woe hi! up,poing a nife at hi!. The' tied up his hands and !ade hi! lie flat on his sto!ach and ased for thee' to his cainet. /earing for his life and that of his co!panions, he reluctantl' told the! where thee' was ept.

&ust on the other roo! was >il!a, who heard whispers 8alusos9 ut si!pl' pla'ed possu!. Hhenthe three saw her on the ed, the' approached her. "ne covered her !outh as another poed anife at her nec. The' threatened to ill her if she should !ae an outcr'.

The' raised her louse and re!oved her underwear. The' tied oth her hands so that she couldoffer no resistance. She was at such a pitiful state when the accused &i!!' Bascua went on top ofher, issing her on different parts of her od', while >icente Sta. Ana held her legs apart. &i!!'finall' inserted his se organ inside her and satisfied his estial desire. After &i!!' was over,>icente too his turn and then &oel. After the three of the! had successfull' deflowered >il!a, the'left, carr'ing with the! the !one' and other personal elongings of the de Belen fa!il'.

After the three !en left, Rogelio, with his hands and feet still tied up, tried to get up fro! the ed andswitched the lights on and called to his neighors for help. >il!a, !eanwhile, had lostconsciousness due to shoc.

eanwhile, #etra a!ire, his sister+in+law who lives right net to his house responded to his cr' forhelp. She went to their house and untied Rogelio. She saw >il!a with her upper od' naed andsoing so she covered >il!a with a lanet. Soon after, his other sister+in+law also arrived. The'reported the incident to the Baranga' Captain.

The' had >il!a ea!ined ' =r. =anilo A. Ra!ire$ at =r. &ose Ri$al e!orial @ospital at aout1:%:: that sa!e !orning. @e conducted eternal and internal ea!inations. @is eternalea!ination showed no ph'sical inuries ecept that he noted several arasions at the genital area.


53/78


54/78

He find these clai!s of irregularities of little if not, of no significance at all when considered in thelight of the natural desire in the victi! to see retriution not si!pl' fro! an'od' who !a' e putefore her ut fro! the ver' sa!e offenders who actuall' did violence against her. *t would e !ostillogical for an outraged victi! to direct her anger against an'one other than her three offenders. Hecannot accept the accused+appellantsD clai! that it was on #at. Re'esD suggestion that the victi!

pointed to the accused+appellants as her assailants. o a!ount of coaching will e sufficient tocounter the natural outrage of a rape victi! against her auser when said auser is presentedefore her in a police line+up. The outrage displa'ed ' the rape victi! was a spontaneous reaction.She identified her assailants ecause of no other reason ecept to let people now who hurt her.

Hhether or not there was a previous police line+up, the fact is that the' were positivel' identified atthe trial. There is no law re5uiring a police line+up as essential to a proper identification. ) Theco!plainantDs recognition of the accused+appellants as her attacers cannot e douted for she hadduring the carnal acts a!ple opportunit' to see the faces of the !en who ravaged her. *t is the !ostnatural reaction for victi!s of cri!inal violence to strive to see the loos and faces of their assailantsand oserve the !anner in which the cri!e was co!!itted. ost often the face of the assailant and

od' !ove!ents thereof, create a lasting i!pression which cannot easil' e erased fro! their!e!or'. 4

The accused+appellants further clai! that -the edical /indings of =r. =anilo Ra!ire$ concludesthat the alleged victi! of rape, >il!a de Belen !ust have had seual eperienced 8sic9 five 89 to si89 da's efore the alleged incident happened on &ul' 2, 1(00 at aout ) to 4 oDcloc in the!orning-. There is no truth to this clai!. *n fact, there was no categorical or positive assertion onthe part of =r. Ra!ire$ that the seual intercourse with >il!a was co!!itted on the ver' date whenthe alleged -roer' with rape- too place on &ul' 2, 1(00.

This is a clear distortion of the testi!on' of =r. Ra!ire$ who on cross+ea!ination testified as

follows%

-ATT?. A*MFEG%

M ?ou cannot also deter!ine when was the first and when was the last intercourse as per 'ourea!inationL

/*SCA

"ection, witness is inco!petent.

C"FRT

Hitness !a' answer.

A The findings suggest that ecause of h'!enal laceration the inuries was 8sic9 recent not !orethan one wee, sir.

M Hhen 'ou sa' it is not !ore than one wee, could it e or da'sL


55/78


56/78

A ?es, 'our @onor.

M /ro! that finding of 'ours regarding the eistence of fresh h'!enal laceration 'ou said that it leastone or 2 da's had elapsed efore 'ou have conducted the ph'sical ea!inationL

A ?es, 'our @onor.

M *n other words fro! one to da'sL

A ?es, 'our @onor.

C"FRT%

M But it is possile that it could e !ore than one or two da'sL.

H*TESS%

A ?es, 'our @onor.- 3

*t is evident that =r. Ra!ire$ never categoricall' concluded that the seual intercourse causing thefresh h'!enal lacerations too place five to si da's efore the date of her ea!ination. Theaccused+appellantsD clai! that the seual intercourse too place on &une 2 or 23, 1(00 isconectural and without factual asis.

The clai! of the accused+appellants that the prosecution failed to present reuttal evidence to refutethe aver!ents of &oel Sartagoda that the' tried in vain to persuade hi! to ad!it the charge againsthi! and to i!plicate his two 829 co+accused did not deserve the attention of the trial court nor does it

deserve "urs, eing per se unacceptale and unelievale in the light of hu!an eperience.

/inall', the' clai! that the fact that >icente Sta. Ana and &i!!' Bascua did not flee, even whenthe' had all the opportunities to do so, prove their innocence. Hhen the' were allowed to go ho!eafter >il!a failed to identif' the! during the first confrontation at the police station, the' sta'ed ho!eand did not flee until the' were again re5uired to appear at the police station for the second ti!e.The accused+appellants in effect posit that if flight is an indication of guilt, non+flight or the decisionnot to flee, having the opportunit' to do so, is a sign of innocence.

He do not agree. Although it is settled that uneplained flight indicates guilt, it does, not necessaril'follow that asence thereof proves innocence, speciall' so when there is overwhel!ing evidence to

estalish their guilt.

This Court finds no reversile error having een co!!itted ' the trial court in convicting the threeaccused+appellants for the cri!e of roer' with !ultiple rape under Article 2(4 par. 2 of the Revised#enal Code. He affir! its findings of fact which are fir!l' grounded on the evidence presented atthe trial. He reiterate our ruling thus%


57/78


58/78


59/78

this Court. et the corresponding Harrants of Arrest e issued against the aforesaidrespondents who should serve ten 81:9 da's of detention at the =as!arias unicipal &ail,Cavite.

iewise, the title issued to Sharcons Builders #hilippines, *nc., under TCT o. T+1142

allegedl' issued on ove!er 11, 1((4, eing spurious, is here' cancelled, it having eenderived fro! another spurious t itle with TCT o. T+23043( allegedl' issued to Evanswinda C.orales on =ece!er 2(, 1(0(. The =eclaration of Real #ropert' o. 43) is liewisehere' cancelled for eing spurious. et a cop' of this "rder e forwarded to the Registr' of=eeds for its i!ple!entation with respect to the two 829 titles for cancellation and to theAssessorOs "ffice of the unicipalit' of =as!arias, Cavite, to stave off the proliferation ofthese spurious instru!ents.

H@ERE/"RE, in view of the foregoing, the instant case is =*S*SSE= H*T@ #RE&F=*CE,whereas, the private defendantOs counterclai!s, which need further sustantiation, areliewise dis!issed. @owever, the said private defendants are not precluded fro! pursuing

their rightful course8s9 of action in the interest of ustice.

S" "R=ERE=.

#etitioner stated that in deter!ining the !erits of SharconsD co!plaint for 5uieting of title, she-stu!led- upon Civil Case o. 2)+(2 for cancellation of title and da!ages filed with the RTC,Branch 2:, *!us, Cavite, presided ' then &udge ucenito . Tagle.2#etitioner then too udicialnotice of the udgeOs =ecision declaring that SharconsD TCT and other supporting docu!ents arefalsified and that respondents are responsile therefor.

"n &ul' 12, 2::1, petitioner issued warrants of arrest against respondents. The' were confined in

the !unicipal ail of =as!arias, Cavite. That sa!e da', respondents filed a !otion for ail and a!otion to lift the order of arrest. But the' were denied outright ' petitioner.

Respondents then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus, doceted asCA+;.R. S# o. 2. "n &ul' 1(, 2::1, the Court of Appeals granted the petition.

"n Septe!er 12, 2::1, the Court of Appeals pro!ulgated its =ecision, the dispositive portion ofwhich reads%

* T@E *;@T "/ A T@E /"RE;"*;, finding the instant petition to e !eritorious, thesa!e is here' ;RATE=. Respondent udgeOs &ul' (, 2::1 "rder, insofar as it declared

herein petitioners in direct conte!pt and ordered their incarceration for ten 81:9 da's, as wellas the Harrant of Arrest, dated &ul' 12, 2::1, and the "rder of Co!!it!ent, dated &ul' 1),2::1, which the respondent udge issued against the persons of the herein petitioners, arehere' F*/*E= and SET AS*=E.

S" "R=ERE=.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt2


60/78

The Court of Appeals ruled that &udge Espaol erred in taing cogni$ance of the =ecision rendered' then &udge Tagle in Civil Case o. 2)+(2 since it was not offered in evidence in Civil Case o.2:)+:: for 5uieting of title. oreover, as the direct conte!pt of court is cri!inal in nature, petitionershould have conducted a hearing. Thus, she could have deter!ined whether respondents are guilt'as charged.

#etitioner filed a !otion for reconsideration ut the Court of Appeals denied the sa!e in itsResolution of ove!er 1, 2::1.

@ence, this petition.

The asic 5uestion efore us is whether petitioner erred in ruling that respondents are guilt' of directconte!pt of court for using falsified docu!ents when Sharcons filed its co!plaint for 5uieting of title.

The earl' case of owen,(this Court characteri$ed direct conte!pt as one done -in the presence of or sonear the court or udge as to ostruct the ad!inistration of ustice.- *t is a contu!acious act
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_150949_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net

evidence - preliminary consideration

Documents