Métodos basados en reducción de variables

Nature: Automatic review of RTC Bataan decision

• Jan. 3, 1995: while 3-yr old Lizette Arabelle Gonzales was defecating at their neighbor’s backyard, a certain Manuel “Boy” Pruna called him & placed her on his lap. Boy was then under the bridge, sniffing rugby & drinking alcohol w/some friends. Boy later on brought her to a grassy area & raped her. Boy was later on arrested.

• Boy’s counsel filed a motion to put him under psychiatric/mental exam claiming that he couldn’t get a coherent answer from the accused. But the Nat’l Center for Mental Health issued a certification that he was in fair condition.

Prosecution witnesses:

• Jacqueline Gonzales – Lizette’s mom who claims that she was fetching water from the artesian well when incident happened. She claims she saw Lizette crying & the girl then narrated to her what happened & pulled her to Boy’s house however accused was not home.

• Lizette testified that she knew the accused & that he inserted his penis into her vagina as she was laid down in a grassy area. She likewise testified that she knew that it was sin to tell a lie.

• Dr. Emelita Quiroz – OG-Gyne who examined Lizette testified that girl’s vagina was positive for sperm cells w/c signified that sexual intercourse took place.

• Teresita Magtanob, med tech, corroborated Quiroz’ findings re sperm cells

• SPO2 Romeo Bunsoy, PNP member on duty when Lizette reported incident. He conducted an ocular inspection of the alleged place of incident & discovered that grasses were flattened. People in nearby areas likewise testified that they saw Boy bring Lizette in that area.

Defense witnesses:

• Carlito Bondoc – testified that Boy was at home during the time the incident occurred because he & Carlito were having coffee.

• Boy – denied having raped the girl. Alibi: he was in his house preparing coffee for Carlito. RTC: convicted of qualified rape sentenced to death, thus automatic review.

Issues & Ratio:

1. WON Lizette is a competent & credible witness considering that she was only 3 when raped & 5 during trial (YES)

• Gen rule: when a witness takes a stand is to presume that he’s competent.

• Burden: upon party objecting to competency to establish ground of incompetency.

• Sec. 21, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence (ROE): kids whose mental maturity renders them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting w/c they’re examined & relating them truthfully are disqualified to be witnesses. No precise minimum age is fixed.

• Test of competency: Intelligence not age. As long as child can perceive & make known his perception to other & that he’s capable of relating truthfully facts for w/c he’s examined. Consider child’s capacity : to receive correct impressions during incident; to comprehend obligation of an oath; relate to those facts truthfully to the court at the time he’s offered as a witness. Kid should understand the punishment w/c may result fr false swearing.

• Determined by sound discretion of the court & such is respected unless found erroneous. In this case, Boy failed to discharge burden of proving Lizette’s mental immaturity. RTC held that kid had capacity of observation, recollection & communication & that she could discern the consequence of telling a lie. Two years lapse since time of incident is immaterial considering that it’s a most nat. reaction for victims of crim’l violence to have a lasting impression of how crime was committed & identity of aggressor.

2. WON Jacqueline’s testimony is hearsay? (NO)

• Not covered by hearsay rule, Sec. 36, Rule 130, ROE w/c provides that a witness can testify only to those facts w/c he knows of his personal knowledge except as otherwise provided by the ROC.

• Hearsay: evidence not founded upon personal knowledge of witness but rather on facts learned from a 3rd person not sworn as a witness to those facts, w/c testimony is inadmissible. Excluded

because there’s no chance for Court to cross-examine alleged source of info & to test his credibility.

• Not applicable in this case considering that source of info (Lizette) was actually sworn in & cross- examined. Court had the chance to observe her manner of testifying. Besides, Jacqueline’s testimony merely corroborated Lizette’s testimony. Kid’s testimony is sufficient to convict Boy. 3. WON Gloria Tolentino should still be presented as a witness? (NO)

• Tolentino listed as witness who saw accused carrying & bringing kid to grassy area at the back of her house.

• No need because she already moved out, besides, her testimony would only be corroborative of kid’s testimony.

4. WON prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to convict accused? (YES)

• Victim spontaneously identified accused as rapist.

• Kid’s immediate revelation to her mom of the crime.

• Kid led her mom to accused’s house right after the incident

• Prompt filing of complaint before the authorities

• Victim’s submission to medical examination

• Hyperemia in kid’s private part

• Presence of sperm cells in kid’s vaginal canal & urine.

• Alibi not accepted considering that his alleged location did not make it physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene during the time crime was committed. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of victim. Esp since alibi was only corroborated by accused’s friend.

5. WON Lizette’s minority was properly established & imposition of death penalty is proper ? (YES)

• RPC Art. 335, par. 7, no. 4, amended by RA No. 7659: death penalty shall be imposed if crime of rape’s committed to a kid below 7 yrs old. Minority must be proved w/equal certainty & clearance as crime itself. Failure to prove such would bar conviction for qualified rape.

• Best proof of age would be the birth certificate. But Court has conflicting pronouncements as to WON such is a condition sine qua non to prove one’s age to appreciate minority as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. Some cases wherein no birth certificate was presented ruled that the victim’s age was not proven. (see pp. 599-603 for list of cases cited) In some instances, mere pronouncement of age was considered as hearsay. On the other hand SC held in some cases that age was sufficiently established despite failure of prosecution to present the birth certificate.

Court now sets guidelines in appreciating age either as an element of crime or a qualifying circumstance:

1. Best evidence: original/certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of part.

2. Absence of such: similar authentic records such as baptismal cert & school records showing date of birth would be sufficient.

3. If documents were lost, destroyed or unavailable, clear & credible testimony of victim’s mom or other family members either by affinity/consanguinity qualified to testify re pedigree such as exact age/date of birth of victim pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule 130, ROE shall be sufficient under ff conditions:

a. victim’s alleged to be below 3 & seek to prove that she’s below 7. b. victim’s alleged to be below 7 & seek to prove that she’s below18. c. victim’s alleged to be below 12 & seek to prove that she’s below 18.

4. Absence of aforementioned, victim’s testimony will suffice as long as such is clearly & expressly admitted.

5. Prosecution has burden of proof of proving victim’s age. Accused’s failure to object to the testimonial evidence shall not be taken against him.

6. Trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the victim’s age.

• In this case, RTC based its decision on medico-legal findings & fact that defense did not contest kid’s age & even questioned her tender age. Former does not establish child’s age. It doesn’t even mention child’s age. Only testimonial evidence presented to establish child’s age was Mom’s testimony. Victim’s testimony was conflicting for although she claimed to be 5 yrs old at the time, she also testified that she was already 5 during the time she was raped. Note that 2 years have lapsed between the time of the incident & the hearing.

• In convicting accused of qualified rape & sentencing him to death, impt to establish that Lizette was indeed below 7 yrs old at the time of the commission of crime. However, due to uncertainty of her age, corroborative evidence (pertinent documents) should be presented to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of rape. Lack of objection from defense as to victim’s age does not discharge prosecution of its burden.

• Testimony of Lizette’s mom: sufficient to hold accused liable for statutory rape/rape of girl below 12. RPC Art. 335 amended by RA 7659 provides that such is punishable w/RP, thus sentence is lowered from death to RP. P50k indemnity + P50k moral damages.

Held: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. RTC modified.

6. People v Heracleo Abello -> edit pa