Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098 would show
that the alleged complicity and participation of the petitioner is (sic) the
same as in Criminal Case No. 20185; and concludes that "with respect to
petitioner, Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098
should be treated in the same manner as Criminal Case No. 20185." [32]
The exclusion of petitioner from the information as one of the accused in
Crim. Case No. 20185 would not affect the outcome of this petition for
the reason that we cannot, at this time, determine with certainty whether
indeed the alleged complicity and participation of petitioner in Crim.
Case No. 20185 are the same as in Crim. Case Nos. 20574, 20191,
20192, 20576 and 22098. Contrary to the assertion of petitioner, this
petition concerns only Crim. Case No. 20574 insofar as it involves the
propriety of the Ombudsmans action in proceeding with the said case.
And as we have stated at the outset, this Court will not interfere with the
Ombudsmans exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion on his part. Criminal Case Nos.
20185, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098 have come to the attention of
this Court merely because petitioner has sought a review of the
Ombudsmans denial of his motion for consolidation. If indeed the said
cases have "common factual antecedents" and petitioners "complicity and
participation" in all of these cases are the same to warrant his exclusion
from the other pertinent cases, petitioners recourse is with the
Sandiganbayan where the said cases are already pending.
In view of the foregoing, we do not find it necessary to address the other
matters originally raised by petitioner in a motion[33] dated January 6,
2000, in which he informed this Court that the Fifth Division of the
Sandiganbayan has issued an Order dated November 25, 1999, setting
the arraignment of petitioner in Criminal Case No. 20191.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 202243, August 07, 2013
ROMULO L. NERI, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH
DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
DECISION
VELASCO JR., J.:
The Case
Assailed and sought to be nullified in this Petition for Certiorari
Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65, With application tor
preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, are the
Resolution1dated February 3, 2012 of the Fifth Division of the
Sandiganbayan in SB-10-CRM-0099 entitled People of the Philippines v.
Romulo L. Neri, as well as its Resolution2 of April 26, 2012 denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
Petitioner Romulo L. Neri (Neri) served as Director General of the
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) during the
administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In connection with what had been played up as the botched PhilippineZTE3 National Broadband Network (NBN) Project, the Office of the
Ombudsman (OMB), on May 28, 2010, tiled with the Sandiganbayan two
(2) criminal Informations, the first against Benjamin Abalos, for violation
of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, docketed as SB-10CRM-0098 (People v. Abalos), and eventually raffled to theFourth
Division of that court. The second Information against Neri, also for
violation of Sec. 3(h), RA 3019, in relation to Sec. 13, Article VII of the
1987 Constitution, was docketed as SB-10-CRM-0099(People v. Neri)
and raffled to the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan. Vis--vis the
same project, the Ombudsman would also later file an information
against Macapagal-Arroyo and another information against her and
several others4 docketed as SB-11-CRM-0467 and SB-11-CRM-0468 to
0469, respectively, all of which ended up, like SB-10-CRM-0098, in the
anti-graft courts 4th Division.
The accusatory portion of the Information against Neri reads as follows:
That during the period from September 2006 to April 2007, or thereabout
in Metro Manila x x x and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused x x x being the then Director General of the
[NEDA], a Cabinet position and as such, is prohibited by Sec. 13 of
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution [from being financially interested in
any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government] but in spite of [said provision], petitioner, while acting as
such, x x x directly or indirectly have financial or pecuniary interest in
the business transaction between the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines and the Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment, Inc., a
Chinese corporation x x x for the implementation of the Philippine x x x
(NBN) Project, which requires the review, consideration and approval of
the NEDA, x x x by then and there, meeting, having lunch and playing
golf with representatives and/or officials of the ZTE and meeting with the
COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos and sending his
emissary/representative in the person of Engineer Rodolfo Noel Lozada
to meet Chairman Abalos and Jose De Venecia III, President/General
Manager of Amsterdam Holdings, Inc. (AHI) another proponent to
implement the NBN Project and discuss matters with them. (Rollo, pp.
48-50.)
In the ensuing trial in the Neri case following the arraignment and pretrial proceedings, six (6) individuals took the witness stand on separate
dates5 to testify for the prosecution. Thereafter, the prosecution twice
moved for and secured continuance for the initial stated reason that the
reply to the questions from the Court), the individual members of the
Fourth Division, based on accused Neris answers as well as his
demeanor on the dock, had already formed their respective individual
opinions on the matter of his credibility. Fundamental is the rule x x x
that an accused is entitled to nothing less that the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge. This Court would not want accused Neri to entertain any
doubt in his mind that such formed opinions might impact on the proper
disposition of the Neri case where he stands accused himself.14cralaw
virtualaw library
While it could very well write finis to this case on the ground of
mootness, the actual justiciable controversy requirement for judicial
review having ceased to exist with the supervening action of the Fourth
Division, the Court has nonetheless opted to address the issue with its
constitutional law component tendered in this recourse.
The unyielding rule is that courts generally decline jurisdiction over
cases on the ground of mootness. But as exceptions to this general norm,
courts will resolve an issue, otherwise moot and academic, when, inter
alia, a compelling legal or constitutional issue raised requires the
formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the
public15 or when, as here, the case is capable of repetition yet evading
judicial review.16Demetria v. Alba added the following related reason:
But there are also times when although the dispute has disappeared, as
in this case, it nevertheless cries out to be resolved. Justice demands that
we act then, not only for the vindication of the outraged right, though
gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the
future.17cralaw virtualaw library
The interrelated assignment of errors converged on the propriety, under
the premises, of the consolidation of SB-10-CRM-0099 with SB-10- CRM0098.
Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in
deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of
the court may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice to the
parties.18 Toward this end, consolidation and a single trial of several
cases in the courts docket or consolidation of issues within those cases
are permitted by the rules.
As held in Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), citing American
jurisprudence, the term consolidation is used in three (3) different
senses or concepts, thus:
(1) Where all except one of several actions are stayed until one is
6. Jarius Bondoc
7. Leo San Miguel
26. Others.
In People v. Abalos, the following are the listed witnesses,31 to wit:
1. Atty. Oliver Lozano
Before the Sandigabayan and this Court, petitioner has harped and rued
on the possible infringement of his right to speedy trial should
consolidation push through, noting in this regard that the Neri case is on
its advanced stage but with the prosecution unable to continue further
with its case after presenting six witnesses.
Petitioner's point is well-taken. In Dacanay, a case involving a request for
separate trial instead of a joint trial, the Court upheld an accused's right
to a speedy trial, guaranteed by Sec. 14 (2), Art. III of the Constitution,
over the claim of the prosecution that a joint trial would make the
resolution of the case less expensive.34 In Dacanay, Dacanay moved for
immediate and separate trial, which the People opposed on the ground
that a separate trial, if approved, would entail a repetitive presentation of
the same evidence instead of having to present evidence against Dacanay
and his coaccused only once at the joint trial. According to the
respondent therein, th will result in inconvenience and expense on the
part of the Government,35 the very same reasons given by the prosecution
Still, in the same month of December 1992, Myra was again molested
by accused-appellant. She was cleaning the room of their house and her
father was the only other person in the house. Accused-appellant
suddenly seized her and started kissing her. As before, her father
succeeded in undressing her despite her resistance and eventually
consummated the sexual act. Like the first incident, she did not mention
this incident to her mother for fear that accused-appellant would carry
out his earlier threats.[6]
Shortly afterwards, the Gianans house was destroyed by fire, as a
result of which the family moved to Barangay Pag-asa in Dasmarias,
Cavite. Myras mother was able to land a job as bookkeeper at the Santos
Pension House where she was required to work from 7:30 in the morning
to 9 oclock in the evening. Accused-appellant, who was unemployed, was
left in their house with the children.[7]
Under this setup, the abuses against Myra continued. One morning in
March 1993, while Myra was taking a bath, accused-appellant entered
the bathroom, removed his shorts, then started embracing and kissing
her. Myra, who was only in her undergarments, tried to push him away,
but was unsuccessful. Accused-appellant, while seated on the toilet bowl,
made Myra straddle him as he did the sexual act.[8]
The fourth rape incident took place in the evening of April 1993, after
Myra and her two younger siblings had gone to bed. Their mother had
not yet arrived from work. Myra was awakened as accused-appellant was
undressing her. She instinctively kicked him, but she was warned not to
make any noise. Accused-appellant then started kissing her and pinned
down her left leg with his feet while undressing. He then proceeded with
the sexual intercourse with Myra who was crying while her father
violated her.[9]
The fifth rape took place in November 1995. During the wake for her
grandfather, while Myra was serving coffee to those who came to condole
with the family, she was told by accused-appellant to go home. A short
while after complainant arrived, her father followed. They were the only
ones in the house. She was then told to prepare the beddings and, while
CONCLUSIONS:
1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injury noted on the body of the
subject at the time of examination.
2. Old healed deep hymenal laceration present.
Dr. Bautista testified that the laceration in Myras hymen was more
than six months old and that, in the normal course of events, it could
have been caused by sexual intercourse. He explained that the admission
of a tube with 2.5 centimeter diameter into the victims vaginal orifice
meant that her genitalia could accommodate a fully erect male organ
without being injured. He opined that considering the age of the victim,
who was then 15 years old, it was unusual for her vagina to have such an
opening and that the lax vaginal walls and shallow rugosities indicated
that the victim has had sexual intercourse several times. [14]
On cross-examination, Dr. Bautista belied the defenses suggestion
that since there was only one laceration in the victims hymen, she could
have engaged in only one instance of sexual intercourse. He explained
that there are cases where the hymen is intact even after several
incidents of sexual intercourse. He conceded, however, that hymenal
lacerations could be caused by factors other than sexual intercourse. [15]
The defense then presented its evidence. Accused-appellant,
testifying as the lone witness for the defense, denied having raped his
daughter Myra. He claimed that the filing of the case against him was
due to his being a strict disciplinarian and that Myra resented her not
being allowed to attend parties and go out with her friends. Accusedappellant testified that after moving to Cavite, he worked as a carpenter
On April 1, 1998, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:[17]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
finding accused Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of multiple
rape. Accordingly, the penalty of triple death is imposed upon him. In
addition, he is ordered to indemnify the victim of the sum ofP100,000.00
as compensatory damages.
SO ORDERED.
Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSEDAPPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF MULTIPLE RAPE.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY
OF TRIPLE DEATH.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE VICTIM THE SUM
OF P100,000.00 AS COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.[18]
I
Accused-appellant contends that the information against him was
void because it did not allege with certainty the dates of commission of
the rapes, as a result of which he was allegedly deprived of the
The phrase on or about the year 1992 encompasses not only the twelve
(12) months of 1992 but includes the years prior and subsequent to 1992,
e.g., 1991 and 1993, for which accused-appellant has to virtually account
for his whereabouts. Hence, the failure of the prosecution to allege with
particularity the date of the commission of the offense and, worse, its
failure to prove during the trial the date of the commission of the offense
as alleged in the Information, deprived accused-appellant of his right to
intelligently prepare for his defense and convincingly refute the charges
against him. At most, accused-appellant could only establish his place of
residence in the year indicated in the Information and not for the
particular time he supposedly committed the rape.[31]
In this case, accused-appellants denial and alibi are so general that it
cannot be said that his defense hinges on the date of the commission of
the rapes. Furthermore, Myra was unwavering in her claim that her
father committed acts of lasciviousness against her once in December
1992, raped her twice in December 1992, twice in 1993, specifically in
the months of March and April, and once in November 1995.
II
With regard to the contention that the information against him is
defective because it charges more than one offense, the pertinent
provisions of Rule 117 state:
SECTION 1. Time to move to quash. At any time before entering his plea,
the accused may move to quash the complaint or information.
SEC. 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the complaint or
information on any of the following grounds:
....
(e) That more than one offense is charged . . . .
SEC. 8. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. The
failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before
PROS. MADRIAGA:
Q When for the first time did your father rape you in Dasmarias,
Cavite?
Q Aside from kissing you on the different parts of your body, what else
did your father do to you?
Q When he inserted his organ to your organ, what was your position?
A Morning.
A Also sitting.
....
A He followed me.
A Yes, sir.
A I was then sleeping. I did not notice that my father was removing my
skirt and my t-shirt and panty.
Q What did you do upon discovering that your father was undressing
you?
A I kicked him.
....
Q Can you recall the approximate time and date when that second
sexual assault was done in Dasmarias?
A April 1993.
Q What were the clothes that he removed from you?
Q What time?
A My skirt, t-shirt, bra and panty.
A 9:00 in the evening.
Q Who were present in your house when this was done?
Q What did your father do after he was able to remove your dress,
panty, bra etc.?
A She is at work.
....
Q While he was inserting his organ into your organ, what did you do?
A I was crying.
Q After that, what did your father do?
A He put on his clothes and he slept.
Considering that the exact time of the commission of the rape is not
an essential element of the crime, Myras testimony is sufficient to
establish the two rape incidents in 1993.
Furthermore, Myras claim of multiple rape was fully corroborated by
the result of the medical examination which shows that she had sexual
intercourse several times.
The evidence shows that accused-appellant was able to consummate
each of the rapes through force and intimidation. Myra testified that her
father threatened to kill her and the other members of their family if she
revealed the sexual attacks to anyone.[35] The threats cannot be
minimized considering the moral influence of accused-appellant over
her. Indeed, we have consistently ruled that in cases of incestuous rapes,
the fathers moral ascendancy over the victim substitutes for violence and
intimidation.[36] This especially holds true in the case of Filipino children
who are traditionally raised to obey and to respect their elders. [37]
With regard to the incident in December 1992 during which accusedappellant kissed complainant in various parts of her body in the
bathroom where she was taking a bath,[38] the crime committed was acts
of lasciviousness. The elements of the crime are: (1) that the offender
commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by
using force or intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is under
12 years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of
either sex.[39] Although the information filed was for multiple rape,
accused-appellant can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because the
crime of acts of lasciviousness is included in rape. [40]
IV
The trial court sentenced accused-appellant to triple death penalty.
However, as the Solicitor General correctly observed, the death penalty
cannot be imposed for the two rapes committed in December 1992 and
the two others committed in March and April 1993, because R.A. No.
7659, which imposes the death penalty for rapes committed under any of
the circumstances provided under 11 thereof, took effect only on
December 31, 1993, and it cannot be given retroactive application.
[41]
Hence, only the penalty of reclusion perpetua can be imposed on
accused-appellant for each count of rape.
With respect to the rape committed in November 1995, R.A. 7659, 11
provides that the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent. Both the
age of the offended party and her filiation with the accused must be
alleged in the information as part of the constitutional right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.[42] However, the information in this case alleged that accusedappellant with lewd designs, taking advantage of his superior strength
over the person of his own twelve (12) year old daughter had repeated
carnal knowledge of her by means of force, violence, and
intimidation. This is similar to the allegations in the four informations
filed in People v. Teves.[43] In that case, three informations alleged that
the accused committed multiple rape by taking advantage of his superior
strength over the person of his thirteen (13) year old daughter. The
fourth information alleged that the accused committed rape by taking
advantage of his superior strength over the person of his own daughter
who is only thirteen years old. This Court ruled that none of these
informations specifically alleged the qualifying circumstances of age and
relationship of the offended party to the accused. It explained:
[T]he informations . . . as phrased, . . . unduly lay stress on the generic
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength. Be it
in terms of syntax or composition, the wording of the informations is
unable to sufficiently notify the accused, a person of common
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.
EDWIN
It is basic that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own
weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.
[1]
The prosecution must demonstrate the culpability of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt for accusation is not synonymous with
guilt. Only when the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction
exists that the liberty, or even the life, of an accused may be declared
forfeit. Correlatively, the judge must examine with extreme caution the
evidence for the state to determine its sufficiency. If the evidence fails to
live up to the moral conviction of guilt the verdict must be one of
acquittal, for in favor of the accused stands the constitutional
presumption of innocence; so it must be in this prosecution for rape.
Jane Vasquez, the eight (8) year old complaining witness, could not
state the month and year she was supposedly abused by her cousin
Edwin Ladrillo. She could narrate however that one afternoon she went
to the house of accused-appellant in Abanico, Puerto Princesa City, which
was only five (5) meters away from where she lived. There he asked her
to pick lice off his head; she complied. But later, he told her to lie down in
bed as he stripped himself naked. He removed her panty and placed
himself on top of her. Then he inserted his penis into her vagina. He
covered her mouth with his hand to prevent her from shouting as he
started gyrating his buttocks. He succeeded in raping her four (4) times
on the same day as every time his penis softened up after each
intercourse he would make it hard again and insert it back into her
vagina. After successively satisfying his lust accused-appellant Edwin
Ladrillo would threaten to "send her to the police" if she would report the
incident to anyone.[2]
which caused his sister to be all the more angry with him; and, the
instant criminal case was a means employed by his sister to exact
revenge on him for their past disagreements.[8]
The trial court found accused-appellant Edwin Ladrillo guilty as
charged, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to
indemnify Jane Vasquez the amount of P100,000.00, and to pay the costs.
[9]
Thus, the court rationalized The crux of accuseds defense is that he was not in the place of the
alleged rape in Abanico, Puerto Princesa City when this allegedly
happened. He denied committing the crime of rape against the young
girl, Jane Vasquez. After having carefully examined and calibrated the
evidence on record, the Court is convinced more than ever that the
accused Edwin Ladrillo indeed repeatedly raped or sexually abused Jane
Vasquez, a girl who was then only five (5) years old. This Court has no
reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of Jane Vasquez given the
straightforward clarity and simplicity with which it was made. It is highly
improbable that a young, 8-year old girl would falsely testify that her own
cousin, the accused herein, raped her. She told her mother: Ma, hindi ka
maniwala sa akin na ang utin ni Kuya Edwin ay ipinasok sa kiki ko. Jane
also described that after the intercourse and as the penis of the accused
softened, the latter would make it hard again and then inserted it again
into her vagina and this was made four (4) times. Janes testimony has all
the characteristics of truth and is entitled to great weight and
credence. The Court cannot believe that the very young victim is capable
of fabricating her story of defloration.
Accused-appellant contends in this appeal that the trial court erred
in: (a) not giving credence to his defense that at the supposed time of the
commission of the offense he was not yet residing in Abanico, Puerto
Princesa City, and did not know the complainant nor her family; (b)
finding him guilty of rape considering that the prosecution failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (c) not finding that the prosecution
failed to sufficiently establish with particularity the date of commission of
the offense; (d) giving great weight and credence to the testimony of the
complainant; and, (e) failing to consider the mitigating circumstance of
your private part, when if you could remember, was (sic) this
happened, that (sic) month?
A: I forgot, your Honor.
Q: Even the year you cannot remember?
A: I cannot recall.
Q: But is there any incident that you can recall that may draw to a
conclusion that this happened in 1992 or thereafter?
A: None, your Honor.
Q: About the transfer of Edwin from Abanico to Wescom Road?
A: I dont know, your Honor (underscoring supplied).[13]
In People v. Clemente Ulpindo[14] we rejected the complaining witness
testimony as inherently improbable for her failure to testify on the date of
the supposed rape which according to her she could not remember, and
acquitted the accused. We held in part While it may be conceded that a rape victim cannot be expected to keep
an accurate account of her traumatic experience, and while Reginas
answer that accused-appellant went on top of her, and that she
continuously shouted and cried for five (5) minutes may have really
meant that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her for five (5)
minutes despite her shouts and cries, what renders Reginas story
inherently improbable is that she could not remember the month or year
when the alleged rape occurred, and yet, she readily recalled the
incident when she was whipped by accused-appellant with a belt that hit
her vagina after she was caught stealing mangoes.
Certainly, time is not an essential ingredient or element of the crime
of rape. However, it assumes importance in the instant case since it
creates serious doubt on the commission of the rape or the sufficiency of
the evidence for purposes of conviction. The Information states that the
crime was committed "on or about the year 1992," and complainant
testified during the trial that she was sexually abused by accusedappellant in the latters house in Abanico, Puerto Princesa City. [15] It
appears however from the records that in 1992 accused-appellant was
still residing in Liberty, Puerto Princesa City, a town different from
Abanico, Puerto Princesa City, and had never been to Abanico at any time
in 1992 nor was he familiar with the complainant and her family. He only
moved to Abanico, Puerto Princesa City, in 1993. [16] It was therefore
impossible for accused-appellant to have committed the crime of rape in
1992 at his house in Abanico, Puerto Princesa City, on the basis of the
prosecution evidence, as he was not yet residing in Abanico at that time
and neither did his family have a home there. The materiality of the date
cannot therefore be cursorily ignored since the accuracy and truthfulness
of complainants narration of events leading to the rape practically hinge
on the date of the commission of the crime.
The ruling of the trial court to the effect that it was not physically
impossible to be in Abanico from Liberty when the crime charged against
him was committed, is manifestly incongruous as it is inapplicable. The
trial court took judicial notice of the fact that Liberty and Abanico were
not far from each other, both being within the city limits of Puerto
Princesa, and could be negotiated by tricycle in less than thirty (30)
minutes.[17] But whether or not it was physically impossible for accusedappellant to travel all the way to Abanico from Liberty to commit the
crime is irrelevant under the circumstances as narrated by
complainant. Truly, it strains the imagination how the crime could have
been perpetrated in 1992 at the Ladrillo residence in Abanico when, to
repeat, accused-appellant did not move to that place and take up
residence there until 1993.
To complicate matters, we are even at a loss as to how the
prosecution came up with 1992 as the year of the commission of the
offense. It was never adequately explained nor the factual basis
thereof established. The prosecutor himself admitted in court that he
could not provide the specific date for the commission of the crime -
COURT: Wait a minute. (To witness) How many times did your Kuya
Edwin placed (sic) himself on top of you and inserted (sic) his penis
to (sic) your private organ?
A: Four (4) times, your Honor.
COURT: You demonstrate that with your fingers.
A: Like this, your Honor (witness raised her four (4) fingers).
COURT: Fiscal, did you charge the accused four (4) times?
PROS. FERNANDEZ: No, your Honor because we cannot provide the
dates (underscoring supplied).[18]
Indeed, the failure of the prosecution to prove its allegation in the
Information that accused-appellant raped complainant in 1992 manifestly
shows that the date of the commission of the offense as alleged was
based merely on speculation and conjecture, and a conviction anchored
mainly thereon cannot satisfy the quantum of evidence required for a
pronouncement of guilt, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt that the
crime was committed on the date and place indicated in the Information.
Second, neither did the testimony of Dr. Danny O. Aquino, the
medico-legal officer, help complainant's cause in any way. In his medicolegal certificate, Dr. Aquino concluded on examination that complaining
witness' hymen was not intact. When asked by the trial court what he
meant by "non-intact hymen," Dr. Aquino explained that it could be
congenital, i.e., natural for a child to be born with a "non-intact
hymen."[19] However, he said, he could not distinguish whether
complainants "non-intact hymen" was congenital or the result of a
trauma.[20] When asked further by the public prosecutor whether he
noticed any healed wound or laceration in the hymen, Dr. Aquino
categorically answered: "I was not able to recognize (healed wound), sir,"
and "I was not able to appreciate healed laceration, sir." [21]The answers of
Dr. Aquino to subsequent questions propounded by the prosecutor were
very uncertain and inconclusive. To questions like, "Is she a virgin or
not?" and "So you are now saying that Jane Vasquez was actually raped?"
the answers of Dr. Aquino were, "I cannot tell for sure, your Honor."
"That is a big probability," and, "Very likely."
It is clear from the foregoing that the prosecution likewise failed to
establish the medical basis for the alleged rape. The failure of Dr. Aquino
to make an unequivocal finding that complainant was raped and that no
healed wound or laceration was found on her hymen seriously affects the
veracity of the allegations of the prosecution.
Third, from her testimony, complainant would have this Court believe
that while she was being raped accused-appellant was holding her hand,
covering her mouth and gripping his penis all at the same
time. Complainants narration is obviously untruthful. It defies the
ordinary experience of man. The rule is elementary that evidence to be
believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but
must be credible in itself.
And fourth, complainant reported the alleged rape to her mother only
in 1994 or two (2) years after its occurrence. It hardly conforms to
human experience that a child like complainant could actually keep to
herself such a traumatic experience for a very long time.Perhaps it would
have been different if she were a little older and already capable of
exercising discretion, for then, concealment of the rape committed
against her would have been more readily explained by the fact, as in this
case, that she was probably trying to avoid the embarrassment and
disrepute to herself and her family. Children, on the other hand, are
naturally more spontaneous and candid, and usually lack the same
discretion and sensibility of older victims of the same offense. Thus, the
fact that complainant, who was only five (5) years old when the supposed
rape happened, concealed her defilement to her mother for two (2) years
seriously impairs her credibility and the authenticity of her story.
We are not unmindful of the fact that a child of tender years, like
complaining witness herein, could be so timid and ignorant that she
could not narrate her ordeal accurately. But the mind cannot rest easy if
this case is resolved against accused-appellant on the basis of the
several weeks prior to February 28, 2003, the undersigned counsel made
several phone calls to the said Josephine P. Jose who, after conferring
with other court employees, repeatedly assured him that the entire
records were already transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
After a painstaking examination of the voluminous records at the Office
of the Postmaster of Tuguegarao City and several inquiries made with the
appropriate court personnel therein, our client discovered that the
records of her case as transmitted by the Court of Appeals on July 10,
2002 and covered as such by registered letter number 3655 [were]
actually delivered by Postman II Gerardo Catolico to Sheriff Maximiano
Corsino on October 9, 2002. A certification to this effect was even issued
by Postmaster Josue T. Tubaa of the Post Office of Tuguegarao City. [1]
On March 31, 2003, the complainant filed a Motion For Immediate
Transmittal of the entire records to the CA. The respondent Judge then
issued an Order dated April 8, 2003, worded as follows:
This refers to the Motion for Immediate Transmittal of the complete
records of the above-entitled case.
The Court received a transmittal letter dated July 10, 2002 from Atty.
Tessie L. Gatmaitan, Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, indicating
therein that the complete record of the case was forwarded to this Court
(photocopy of which [is] hereto attached). [H]owever, only the transmittal
letter was received on October 9, 2002 without records attached to it. It
is then clear that said records are still in the custody of the Court of
Appeals.
In view of the above, the herein Motion cannot be given due course.
Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado, counsel for the accused is hereby advised to
verify the status of the case at the appellate court.[2]
Confused as to which court had custody of the records in question,
the complainant then filed a Manifestation of Inquiry [3] with the CA
CONSIDERING
THE
FOREGOING, the
charges
against
respondents Presiding Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino, Sheriff Maximiano
Corsino, Stenographers Leticia F. Domingo, Rafaela G. Ancheta, Elma C.
Santiago and Altagracia Baquiran, Interpreter Marites R. Manio, Clerk III
Josephine P. Jose, Process Server Jonard A. Nieves, and Utility Worker
Edgar D. Battung are DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court further
resolves to consider the instant case CLOSED AND TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman),
JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez,