LUIS UY, SUBSTITUTED BY LYDIA UY VELASQUEZ AND SHIRLEY UY MACARAIG, Petitioner , vs. SPOUSES SPOUSES JOSE LACSAMAN LACSAMANA A AND AND ROSAURA ROSAURA MENDOZA, MENDOZA, Respondents. SUBSTITUTED BY CORAZON BUENA, Respondents. G.R. No. 206220, Augu! "#, 20"$ %ACTS&
Petitioner Luis Uy filed with RTC Batangas a Complaint for Decl Declar arat atio ion n of Null Nullit ity y of Docu Docume ment ntss with with Dama Damage gess agai agains nstt respondents Petra Rosca, and spouses ose Lacsamana and Rosaura !endo"a. Uy alleged that he was the lawful hus#and of Rosca. $e stated that they li%ed together as hus#and and wife from the time they were married in &'(( until &')* when they separated +#ecause of Uys alleged affair-. Uy and Rosca had eight children. u#/ect of this case is a piece of residential land e%idenced #y a Deed of ale from the pouses !anuel. The property, together with the house Rosca #uilt was then su#se0uently sold to pouses Lacsamana. Uy alleges, among others, that the property that is part of the sale of Rosca to ps. Lacsamana was %oid for failure to o#tain his marital consent, the property #eing con/ugal in nature. Uy then filed a complaint praying that the Deed of ale e1ecuted e1ecuted #y Rosca in fa%or of ps. Lacsamana #e declared null and %oid with respect to his rights, interest, owners ownership hip and damage damages. s. Rosca Rosca howe%er howe%er contend contendss that that since the property in 0uestion was registered in Rosca2s name, such circumstance indicated that the property #elonged to Rosca, as her paraphernal property from her paraphernal funds and that she was ne%er married to Uy. Upon Uys death his two daughters, Lydia Lydia Uy 3elas0ue" and hirley hirley Uy !acaraig su#stituted him in the case. 4ears 4ears later, Rosca also died. 5arlier, respondent ose Lacsamana died on 67 !arch &''&. !eanwhile, pouses Lacsamana sold the property to Cora"on Buena through a Deed of 8#solute ale. Thus, #oth Rosca and the pouses Lacsamana were su#stituted #y Buena as respondent in this case.
RTC RTC held that there was no %alid marriage #etween Uy and Rosca and the Deed of ale e1ecuted #y Rosca o%er the house and lot in fa%or of pouses Lacsamana was %alid9 :t was then affirmed #y the C8.
ISSUE&
;hethe ;hetherr or not the Deed Deed of ale e1ecute e1ecuted d #y Rosca alone, alone, without Uy2s consent, in fa%or of pouses Lacsamana, is %alid.
HELD& 4es, 4es, the sale is %alid. The main issue in determining the %alidity of the sale of the property #y Rosca alone is anchored on whether Uy and Rosca had a %alid marriage. There is a presumption esta#lished in our Rules amily Code which applies when a couple li%ing together were not incapacitated from getting married. The pro%ision states that properties ac0uired during coha#itation are presumed co?owned unless there is proof to the contrary. The court agree with #oth the trial and appellate courts that Rosca was a#le to pro%e that the su#/ect su#/ect property is not co?owned co?owned #ut is paraphernal.
DOLORES DIAZ, Petitioner , vs. PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES AND LETICIA S. ARCILLA, Respondents. G.R. No. 20'""(, D)*)+)- 02, 20"$
%ACTS&
@n !arch &&, &''', an :nformation for estafa was filed against petitioner #efore the RTC for her alleged failure to return or remit the proceeds from %arious merchandise %alued at P*6,777.77 recei%ed #y her in trust ? i.e., on consignment #asis from respondent. During arraignment, petitioner entered a negati%e plea. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution anchored its case on the testimony of respondent who claimed to #e a #usinesswoman engaged in the #usiness of selling goodsAmerchandise through agents +one of whom is petitioner- under the condition that the latter shall turn o%er the proceeds or return the unsold items to her a month after they were entrusted. Respondent a%erred that on >e#ruary 67, &'', she entrusted merchandise consisting of um#rellas and #ath towels worth P*,*77.77 to petitioner as e%idenced #y an acnowledgment receipt duly signed #y the latter. $owe%er, on !arch 67, &'', petitioner was only a#le to remit the amount of P*,*77.77 and thereafter, failed to mae further remittances and ignored respondent2s demands to remit the proceeds or return the goods. :n her defense, petitioner admitted ha%ing pre%ious #usiness dealings with respondent #ut not as an agent. he clarified that she was a client who used to #uy purchase order cards +P@Cs- and gift checs +ECs- from respondent on installment #asis and that, during each deal, she was made to sign a #lan sheet of paper prior to the issuance of P@Cs and ECs. he further claimed that their last transaction was conducted in &'', which had long #een settled. $owe%er, she denied ha%ing recei%ed P*6,777.77 worth of merchandise from respondent on >e#ruary 67, &''. RTC ac0uitted petitioner of the charge of estafa #ut held her ci%illy lia#le to pay respondent the amount of P*6,777.77, with
interest until fully paid, and to pay the costs. Upon appeal, C8 upheld petitioner2s ci%il lia#ility with modification. $ence, this petition.
ISSUE&
;hether or not petitioner is ci%illy lia#le to respondent.
HELD&
4es. Petitioner is ci%illy lia#le. 8t the outset, it is noteworthy to mention that the e1tinction of the penal action does not carry with it the e1tinction of the ci%il lia#ility where the ac0uittal is #ased on reasona#le dou#t as only preponderance of e%idence, or e#ruary 67, &'', the documentary e%idence that respondent had duly identified and formally offered in the course of these proceedings. Petitioner2s claim that she was re0uired to sign two +6- one?half sheets of paper and a trust receipt in #lan during her transactions with respondent, which she allegedly failed to retrie%e after paying her o#ligations, is a #are allegation that cannot #e gi%en credence. :t is well?settled that
as petitioner2s failure to remit the proceeds of the sale of the merchandise worth P*6,777.77, or to return the same to respondent in case such merchandise were not sold. This was esta#lished through the presentation of the acnowledgment receipt dated >e#ruary 67, &'', which, as the document2s name connotes, shows that petitioner acnowledged receipt from respondent of the listed items with their corresponding %alues, and assumed the o#ligation to return the same on !arch 67, &'' if not sold. :n this relation, it should #e pointed out that under ection * +d-, Rule &*& of the Rules of Court, the legal presumption is that a person taes ordinary care of his concerns. To this, case law dictates that the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents and conse0uences. >urther, under ection * +p- of the same Rule, it is e0ually presumed that pri%ate transactions ha%e #een fair and regular. This #ehoo%es e%ery contracting party to learn and now the contents of a document #efore he signs and deli%ers it. The effect of a presumption upon the #urden of proof is to create the need of presenting e%idence to o%ercome the prima facie case created, there#y which, if no contrary proof is offered, will pre%ail. :n this case, petitioner failed to present any e%idence to contro%ert these presumptions. 8lso, respondent2s possession of the document pertaining to the o#ligation strongly #uttresses her claim that the same has not #een e1tinguished. Preponderance of e%idence only re0uires that e%idence #e greater or more con%incing than the opposing e%idence. 8ll things considered, the e%idence in this case clearly preponderates in respondent2s fa%or.
PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO PADRIGONE ./.. ROBERTO SAN MIGUEL, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. "(661. M #, 2002
%ACTS&
Ro#erto Padrigone a..a. Ro#erto an !iguel, !ichael an 8ntonio, ocel :#aneta and 8#elardo Triumpante were charged with rape. 8ppellant Ro#erto Padrigone and the other accused #roe into the house of Rowena Contridas, then & years old, situated in an Benito, al%acion, Buhi, Camarines ur. 8ppellant Ro#erto Padrigone and accused ocel :#aneta poed a nife at Rowena and her fourteen year?old sister, Nimfa and threatened to ill them if they reported the incident to others. Then, appellant undressed Rowena, forced her to lie down and se1ually %iolated her while his co?accused watched with glee. 8fter appellant satisfied his lust on Rowena, the other accused too their turns. 5%ery one of the accused raped Rowena. Before they left, they warned the sisters not to report the incident or else they will ill them. Despite the threats, Rowena and Nimfa reported the incident to the police and identified appellant and his co?accused as the perpetrators. $owe%er, #ased on the police #lotter, Rowena stated that it was only appellant who raped her. Padrigone assails the
procedural irregularities committed #y the prosecution and #y the trial court. $e claims that the prosecution UPPR55D 53:D5NC5 #y not presenting Rowena, when the latter should ha%e had her sane moments. 8s a conse0uence, the trial court depri%ed Pedrigone of the opportunity to cross?e1amine her when she was allegedly declared #efore the chief of police that it was only Pedrigone who raped her which declaration #ecame the #asis for the latters con%iction.
ISSUE&
;hether or not the non?presentation of Rowena on the witness stand can #e considered as suppression of e%idence.
HELD&
No. the court held that the non?presentation of Rowena on the witness stand cannot #e considered as suppression of e%idence. Under Rule &*&, ection *+e- of the Rules of Court, the rule that e%idence willfully suppressed would #e ad%erse if produced does not apply if +a- the e%idence is at the disposal of #oth parties9 +#- the suppression was not willful9 +c- it is merely corro#orati%e or cumulati%e9 and +dthe suppression is an e1ercise of a pri%ilege.
Plainly, there was no suppression of e%idence in this case. First , the defense had the opportunity to su#poena Rowena e%en if the prosecution did not present her as a witness. :nstead, the defense failed to call her to the witness stand. Second , Rowena was certified to #e suffering from 8cute Psychotic Depressi%e Condition and thus cannot stand /udicial proceedings yet. The non?presentation, therefore, of Rowena was not willful. Third , in any case, while Rowena was the %ictim, Nimfa was also present and in fact witnessed the %iolation committed on her sister.
METROPOLITAN BAN3 4 TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. COURT O% APPEALS 5 G.T.P. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents G.R. No. "22'##. Ju5) ', 2000 %ACTS&
The su#/ect property is a parcel of land in Diliman, Hue"on City consisting of si1 hundred ninety +'7- s0uare meters originally owned #y #usinessman Tomas Chia under TCT No. RT?&)* +&7'7&- of the Registry of Deeds for Hue"on City. addled with
de#ts and #usiness re%erses, Chia offered the su#/ect property for sale to pri%ate respondent E.T.P. De%elopment Corporation, with assumption of the mortgage inde#tedness in fa%or of petitioner !5TR@B8NI secured #y the su#/ect property. Pending negotiations for the proposed sale, 8tty. Bernardo 8tien"a, acting in #ehalf of respondent ETP, went to the !5TR@B8NI #ranch in Huiapo, !anila sometime in the last wee of 8ugust &'J7 to in0uire on !r. Chia2s remaining #alance on the real estate mortgage. !5TR@B8NI o#liged with a statement of account of !r. Chia amounting to a#out P&&,777.77 as of 8ugust ,&'J7. The deed of sale and the memorandum of agreement #etween !r. Chia and respondent ETP were e%entually e1ecuted and signed on 7( eptem#er &'J7 in the office of 8tty. 8tien"a. @n & eptem#er &'J7, 8tty. 8tien"a went to !5TR@B8NI Huiapo Branch and paid P&&,(&.)&, for which !5TR@B8NI issued an official receipt acnowledging payment. This notwithstanding, petitioner !5TR@B8NI refused to release the real estate mortgage on the su#/ect property despite repeated re0uests from 8tty. 8tien"a, thus prompting respondent ETP to file an action for specific performance against petitioner !5TR@B8NI and !r. Chia. The trial court rendered /udgement in fa%or of respondents ordering herein petitioner !5TR@B8NI to releaseAcancel the real estate mortgage constituted o%er the su#/ect property. The C8 re%ersed the decision of trial court, howe%er the respondent file a motion for reconsideration with alternati%e prayer to re0uire !5TR@B8NI to furnish ETP of the alleged unpaid #alance of !r. Chia. !etro#an, thus failed to present e%idence. The C8 amended its pre%ious decision affirming the /udgment of the Regional Trial Court. $ence, the petition for re%iew.
ISSUE&
;hether or not petitioner !5TR@B8NI2s omission to present its e%idence only created an ad%erse inference against its cause there#y estopped from refusing to discharge the real estate mortgage.
HELD&
4es. !5TR@B8NI is estopped from refusing the discharge of the real estate mortgage on the claim that the su#/ect property still secures
petitioner !5TR@B8NI to defend its non?release of the real estate mortgage. Thus, the following pronouncements of this Court in Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court of Appeals et. al, speaing thru !r. ustice Ricardo >rancisco, find rightful application, viz .? <:t is a well?settled rule that when the e%idence tends to pro%e a material fact which imposes a lia#ility on a party, and he has it in his power to produce e%idence which from its %ery nature must o%erthrow the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such e%idence, the presumption arises that the e%idence, if produced, would operate to his pre/udice, and support the case of his ad%ersary. 1 1 1<
3erily, petitioner !5TR@B8NI2s omission to present its e%idence only created an ad%erse inference against its cause. Therefore, it cannot now #e heard to complain since respondent Court e1tended a reasona#le opportunity to petitioner !5TR@B8NI that it did not a%ail.
%ILOMENA G. DELOS SANTOS, JOSE%A A. BACALTOS, NELANIE A. ANTONI, AND MAUREEN A. BIEN, Petitioners, vs COMMISSION ON AUDIT, COMMISSIONERS, Respondent .
REPRESENTED
BY
ITS
G.R. No. "#'1$, Augu! "(, 20"(
%ACTS&
ometime in @cto#er 677&, then Congressman 8ntonio 3. Cuenco of the econd District of Ce#u City entered into a !emorandum of 8greement with the 3icente otto !emorial !edical Center +3!!C- represented #y Dr. 5use#io !. 8l0ui"alas, !edical Center Chief, appropriating to the hospital the amount of P&,77,777.77 from his Priority De%elopment 8ssistance >und +PD8>- to co%er the medical assistance of indigent patients under the Tony N2 Tommy +TNT- $ealth Program. e%eral years after the
enforcement of the !@8, allegations of forgery and falsification of prescriptions and referrals for the a%ailment of medicines under the TNT Program surfaced. @n Decem#er &(, 677(, petitioner >ilomena E. Delos antos , who succeeded Dr. 8l0ui"alas, created, through $ospital @rder No. &&&6, a fact?finding committee to in%estigate the matter. ;ithin the same month, Beatri" !. Booc tate 8uditor :3, who was assigned to audit the hospital, came up with her own re%iew. he furnished Delos antos the results of her re%iew recommending the in%estigation of the se%eral irregularities found. !eanwhile, the fact?finding committee created #y Delos antos su#mitted its Report dated anuary &J, 677 essentially affirming the unseen and unnoticea#leM irregularities attendant to the a%ailment of the TNT Program. :n the initial in%estigation conducted #y the Co8, it was found that there are irregularities in the prescriptions for %accines, drugs and medicines for anti?ra#ies and prescriptions for drugs and medicines allegedly issued #y Dell Pharmacy which ha%e not #een paid #y 3!!C. :n her CommentAReply to the initial in%estigation addressed to Leonor D. Boado, Director of the Co8 Regional @ffice 3:: in Ce#u City, Delos antos e1plained that during the initial stage of the implementation of the !@8 +i.e., from 6777 to 6776- the hospital screened, inter%iewed, and determined the 0ualifications of the patients?#eneficiaries through the hospitals social worer. $owe%er, sometime in 6776, Cuenco put up the TNT @ffice in 3!!C, which was run #y his own staff who too all pro forma referral slips #earing the names of the social worer and the !edical Center Chief, as well as the log#oo. >rom then on, the hospital had no more participation in the said program and was relegated to a mere #ag eeper.M ince the #enefactor of the funds chose Dell Pharmacy as the sole supplier, anti?ra#ies medicines were purchased from the said pharmacy and, #y practice, no pu#lic #idding was anymore re0uired. Conse0uently, a special audit team +8T-, led #y 8tty. >ederico 5. Dinapo, r., tate 8uditor 3, was formed a special audit in%estigation with respect to the findings of Booc and her team. @n eptem#er J, 677J, the 8T Team uper%isor, Boado, issued ND No. 677J?7'?7&, disallowing the amount of P*,*J,').&7 for the
payment of drugs and medicines for anti?ra#ies with falsified prescription and documents, and holding petitioners, together with other 3!!C officials, solidarily lia#le therefor. Petitioners respecti%e participations were detailed as followsK + a- for Delos antos, in her capacity as !edical Center Chief, for signing and appro%ing the dis#ursement %ouchers and checs9 + b- for petitioner Dr. osefa 8. Bacaltos, in her capacity as Chief 8dministrati%e @fficer, for certifying in Bo1 8 that the e1penses were lawful, necessary and incurred in her direct super%ision9 + c- for 8ntoni, in her capacity as Chief of the Pharmacy Unit, for appro%ing the supporting documents when the imputed deli%ery of the medicines had already #een consummated9 +d - for petitioner !aureen 8. Bien, in her capacity as $ospital 8ccountant, for certifying in Bo1 B of the dis#ursement %oucher that the supporting documents for the payment to Dell Pharmacy were complete and proper. 8ggrie%ed, petitioners filed their respecti%e appeals #efore the Co8 which were denied through Decision No. 67&7?7& dated 8pril J, 67&7, maintaining their solidary lia#ility. $ence, this petition. ISSUE& ;hether or not the Co8 committed gra%e a#use of discretion in holding Delos antos and Boo solidarily lia#le for the disallowed amount of P*,*J,').&7.
HELD&
No. 8t the outset, it must #e emphasi"ed that the Co8 is endowed with enough latitude to determine, pre%ent, and disallow irregular, unnecessary, e1cessi%e, e1tra%agant or unconsciona#le e1penditures of go%ernment funds. :t is tased to #e %igilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the go%ernment2s, and ultimately the people2s, property. The e1ercise of its general audit power is among the constitutional mechanisms that gi%es life to the chec and #alance system inherent in our form of go%ernment.
Corollary thereto, it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrati%e authorities, especially one which is constitutionally?created, such as the Co8, not only on the #asis of the doctrine of separation of powers #ut also for their presumed e1pertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. >indings of administrati%e agencies are accorded not only respect #ut also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or ar#itrariness that would amount to gra%e a#use of discretion. :t is only when the Co8 has acted without or in e1cess of /urisdiction, or with gra%e a#use of discretion amounting to lac or e1cess of /urisdiction, that this Court entertains a petition 0uestioning its rulings. There is gra%e a#use of discretion when there is an e%asion of a positi%e duty or a %irtual refusal to perform a duty en/oined #y law or to act in contemplation of law as when the /udgment rendered is not #ased on law and e%idence #ut on caprice, whim, and despotism. :n this case, the Court finds no gra%e a#use of discretion on the part of the Co8 in issuing the assailed Decisions. PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff?appelee, %s. JESUS EDUALINO, accused?appellant. G.R. No. ""#02 A7-89 "", "##
%ACTS&
This is a re%iew of the con%iction of a rape case filed against esus 5dualino #y the complainant Rowena Nanti"a a married and pregnant woman at the time of the incident. The complainant %ersion of fact states that she was in%ited to drin one #ottle of #eer #y then a drun 5dualino. ;hen she was semi?conscious she was dragged in a place where the e%il acts were consummated. The accused arguments rely on alternati%e defenses and ali#i, to wit9 &- that there was foreplay and orgasm that occurred in the alleged consummation and that according to the defense #ear the earmars of a %oluntary and mutual coition of a consensual intercourse 6- that the character of the
complainant is of ill?refute on the #asis that no responsi#le and decent pregnant married woman, would #e out at two +6- o2cloc in the morning getting drun much less would a decent >ilipina as a man to accompany her to drin #eer *- that the complainant merely concocted the charge of rape to sa%e her marriage since her hus#and had found out that she was using drugs and drining alcohol and e%en made a spectacle of herself when she tried to seduce accused?appellant on !ay &''( while she was under the influence of drug and alcohol.
ISSUE&
;hether or not the crime of rape was esta#lished.
HELD&
4es. The crime of rape was esta#lished #eyond reasona#le dou#t. The court held that the %ictim Rowena Nanti"a2s testimony was sufficient to manifest that the carnal nowledge was without her consent and with due force and intimidation. The court further pro%ides that a person accused of rape can #e con%icted solely on the testimony of the %ictim pro%ided the testimony is credi#le, natural, con%incing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the course of things. @n the issue of morality of the complainant, the court pointed out that the moral character of a rape %ictim is immaterial in the prosecution and con%iction of the accused. The allegation of drunenness and #eing a drug user will not per se preclude a finding that a woman was raped. The Court ruled that e%en prostitutes can #e the %ictims of rape.
@n the 8ccused?appellant argument that the charge of rape was concocted #y the %ictim to sa%e her marriage9 the Court did not #elie%e that a married woman would in%ent a story that she was raped in an attempt to conceal addiction to drugs or alcohol, in order to sa%e her marriage. The court cannot understand how a false rape story can sa%e a marriage under the circumstances.
PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff?8ppellee, %s. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA, 8ccused?8ppellant.
G.R. No. "#"26(
%ACTS&
O*!o)- "6, 20"(
The prosecution presented !arilyn Tray%illa, a Non?Uniformed Personnel of the Philippine National Police, who testified that on *& uly 6776 at around K*7 in the morning, while performing her duty as a female friser assigned at the !anila Domestic 8irport Terminal : in Pasay City, she frised the accused Cadidia upon her entry at the departure area and she noticed something unusual and thic in the area of Cadidias #uttocs. Upon in0uiry, Cadidia answered that it was only her sanitary napin which caused the unusual thicness.Not con%inced with Cadidias e1planation, Tray%illa and her female co? employee Leilani !. Bagsican #rought the accused to the comfort room inside the domestic airport to chec. ;hen she and Bagsican ased Cadidia to remo%e her underwear, they disco%ered that inside were two sachets of sha#u. The two sachets of sha#u were turned o%er to their super%isor P@* !usalli :. 8ppang. The second prosecution witness, Bagsican, corro#orated the testimony of Tray%illa. >inally, the prosecution also presented P@* 8ppang who testified a#out the incident happened. Based on the testimony of the * witnesses, the trial court found the accused?appellant guilty as charged. @n appeal, Cadidia contended that the trial court gra%ely erred when it failed to consider the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Tray%illa and Bagsican as to who among them instructed the accused?appellant to #ring out the contents of her underwear. 8nother contradiction pressed on #y the defense was the recollection of Bagsican that when she and Tray%illa found the illegal drugs, Bagsican placed it inside her #la"er for safeeeping, in contrast with statement of P@* 8ppang that when Bagsican and Tray%illa went out of the comfort room, they immediately handed him the sha#u allegedly taen from the accused?appellant. 8ppellant liewise argued against her con%iction #y the trial court despite the fact that the
identity of the illegal drugs allegedly sei"ed was not pro%en with moral certainty due to the #roen chain of custody of e%idence
ISSUE&
;hether or not the conflicting testimony of the witnesses should #e gi%en credence.
HELD&
4es. The court held that in cases in%ol%ing %iolations of Dangerous Drugs 8ct, credence should #e gi%en to the narration of the incident #y the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to ha%e performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is e%idence to the contrary. >urther, the e%aluation of the credi#ility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial /udge, whose conclusion thereon deser%es much weight and respect #ecause the /udge has the direct opportunity to o#ser%e said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. 8pplying the foregoing, the court affirms the findings of
the lower court in the appreciation of facts and credi#ility of the witnesses. 8nd e%en assuming that the said set of facts pro%ided conflicting statements, the court had consistently held that minor inconsistencies do not negate the eyewitnesses positi%e identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. 8s long as the testimonies as a whole presented a coherent and #elie%a#le recollection, the credi#ility would still #e upheld. ;hat is essential is that the witnesses testimonies corro#orate one another on material details surrounding the commission of the crime. PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES, 7985!8::;77)99)) LEONARDO %ABRE VIENTE, ccu);77)995!
<
G.R. No. "166#. Ju9 2(, 2002 %ACTS&
Leonardo >a#re was ad/udged guilty of raping his own daughter !arilou >a#re. The trial court ga%e credence to the e%idence gi%en #y the prosecution, particularly to the narration of the young complainant, e1pressing a 0uote from an o#ser%ation once made #y this Tri#unal in one of its decision that e%en when consumed with re%enge, it +would- tae a certain amount of psychological depra%ity for a young woman to concoct a story which couldM put her own father for the rest of his remaining life in /ail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shameM .@n 6 8pril,&'' around four ocloc in the afternoon, !arilou >a#re was alone in their house in #arangay !anat, Trento,8gusan del ur. 8dela >a#re, her mother, had gone to puro ( to #uy fish while her si#lings were out strolling. 8fter cleaning their
yard, !arilou went to the ad/acent palm plantation, a#out fourteen to fifteen meters away from their house, to gather palm oil. !arilou had #een gathering palm oil for a#out a minute when her father, appellant Leonardo >a#re, arri%ed. $e suddenly gri pped !ar ilou s hand s and forci#ly dragged her towards the house. $e closed the door and re mo% ed his dau ght er s underwear. $e too off his pants and ased !arilou to hold his se1 organ. :n tears, !arilou o#eyed her father. $e then #egan tou chin g t he g irl s #re ast s an d %a gin a. $e forced her to lie down, mounted her and sought to insert his penis in to her or ga n. !arilo u cr ied in pai n. Then after some time he still could not insert his penis into !arilous %agina, he applied coconut oil to lu#ricate his and his daughters se1ual organs. $e was finally a#le to penetrate her. @nce inside her, appellant made push and pull mo%ements until he was through with h er. 8 pp el la nt t hr ea te ne d t o il l h er i f s he w ou ld t el l any #ody a#ou t the se1 ual encounter. The young girls mother, 8dela >a#re, arri%ed home a#out fi%e ocloc that afternoon #ut, remem#ering her fathers threats, she ept mum a#out her ordeal.
ISSUE&
;hether or not the testimony of appellant should ac0uire added strength for the failure of the prosecution to conduct cross? e1amination on him and to present any re#uttal e%idence.
HELD&
No. The cross?e1amination of a witness is a prerogati%e of the party against whom the witness is called. The purpose of cross? e1amination is to test the truth or accuracy of the statements of a witness made on direct e1amination. The party against whom the witness testifies may deem any further e1amination unnecessary and instead rely on any other e%idence theretofore adduced or thereafter to #e adduced or on what would #e #elie%ed is the perception of the court thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not #ound to gi%e full weight to the testimony of a witness on direct e1amination merely #ecause he is not cross?e1amined #y the other party. The ali#i of appellant itself would not appear to #e deser%ing of serious consideration. $is account that at the time of the allege drape he was woring at a coconut plantation, /ust a#out one ilometer away from the place of the crime, hardly would amount to much. Nor would the testimony of 8dela >a#re, his wife, merit any #etter regard. 8t first, she testified that on the day of the rape incident, she had left their house at four ocloc in the afternoon. Later, howe%er, she changed her story #y saying that she had left the house in the morning and returned only at ten ocloc that same morning, staying home the whole day thereafter. :n any e%ent, in order that ali#i might prosper, it would not #e enough for an accused to pro%e that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed9 he would ha%e to demonstrate liewise that he could not ha%e #een physically present at the place of the crime or in its immediate %icinity at the time of its commission. Clearly, in the instant case, it was not at all impossi#le nor e%en impro#a#le for appellant to ha%e #een at the crime scene. Upon the other hand, the e%idently candid and straight forward testimony of !arilou should #e more than enough to re#ut the claim of innocence made #y appellant. The credi#ility of !arilou would not #e all that difficult to discern from her narration that as so descri#ed #y the prosecution, was full of graphic details which a young pro%incial girl could not possi#ly ha%e concocted and which could only ha%e come
from someone who must ha%e personally e1perienced a #rutal rape assault.M :t has #een stressed 0uite often enough that the testimony of a rape %ictim, who is young and still immature, deser%es faith and credence for it simply would #e unnatural for a young and innocent girl to in%ent a story of defloration, allow an e1amination of her pri%ate parts and thereafter su#/ect herself and her family to the trauma of a pu#lic trial unless she indeed has spoen the truth. !ost especially, a daughter would not accuse her own father of such a serious offense or allow herself to #e per%erted if she were not truly moti%ated #y a desire to see a /ust retri#ution for a %iolation #ra"enly committed against her.
