NOTAS HISTÓRICAS SOBRE LA PRESENCIA GITANA EN ESPAÑA GITANA EN ESPAÑA

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ROGELIO DE JESUS y QUIZON, alias "ELIONG," Accused-appellant.

G.R. No. L-39087 April 27, 1984

FACTS:

Clara Mina, however, is feeble-minded. She is unable to comb her hair, bathe herself and wash her clothes. Because of her mental condition, she just stayed in the house, doing no household chores.

The accused, Rogelio de Jesus, a 19-year old farmer, who lived in the house of his sister some 15 meters away from the victim's house, knew of Clara's mental infirmity, and has often seen her left alone in the house.

At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of Jan. 3, 1974, Pastora Simon went out to the field in order to plant palay, leaving her daughter Clara Mina alone in the house. Her husband (Clara's father), had gone to a place called Soliven four days before, while the other members of the household had also left for the field.

That afternoon, Clara Mina was seated on top of a trunk when Rogelio de Jesus suddenly entered the house, carried her in his arms and laid her on the floor. Objecting to what was being done to her, Clara gave an outcry "Madi! Madi!" (Which translated means "I don't like! I don't like!") Rogelio, ignoring her cries, removed her panties as well as his own trousers. He lay on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina and performed the sexual act.

Meanwhile, Pastora Simon, who had already walked some 150 meters away from their house, when sensing it was about to rain, hurried back to the house to get cellophane with which to shield her from the rain. Upon her return to the house, she found Rogelio de Jesus naked lying on top of Clara Mina whose legs were spread apart. Seeing them in that position, she rushed to the kitchen to get a club but Rogelio spotted her and ran away.

The next day, Clara Mina, accompanied by her parents, denounced Rogelio de Jesus to the police authorities. Clara Mina was examined. According to Dr. Babaran, the abrasions were possibly inflicted the day prior to the examination and that the contusion on the left temporal area of the girl's head could have been caused when her head was pushed against a hard object.

Subsequently, Rogelio de Jesus was surrendered by his brother-in-law, a councilor to the Alicia Police Department. He executed an affidavit, Exhibit "D" subscribed before Alicia Municipal Judge Flor Egipto on January 5, 1974, admitting that he had sexual intercourse once with Clara Mina, but denying that he raped her.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the complainant is competent witness on the ground that being feeble minded is not a competent witness in contemplation of the rules.

RULING:

No. Despite the fact that complainant was feeble-minded and had displayed difficulty in comprehending the questions propounded on her is an undisputed fact, there is no showing that she could not convey her Ideas by words or signs. It appears in the records that complainant gave sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded by the court and the counsels. The court is satisfied that the complainant can perceive and transmit in her own way her own perceptions to others. She is a competent witness.

That complainant possesses such a low mental capacity, to the extent of being incapable of giving consent, could be gleaned from the fact, as testified to by her mother, that she is unable to do the simple tasks of combing her hair and bathing herself. Thus, even granting it to be true, as counsel has insinuated, that complainant had submitted to the sexual act without resistance such cannot be construed as consent on her part, so as to preclude it from being rape. Incapable of giving consent, she could not thus consent in intelligently.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ROGELIO DE JESUS y QUIZON, alias "ELIONG", accused-appellant.

129 SCRA 4 (1984)

FACTS:

Clara Mina, a feeble--minded single woman of 28, lived with her parents in barrio Amistad, Alicia, Isabela. At around 2:00 in the afternoon of January 3, 1974, Clara was left in the house when members of the household went farming. Rogelio de Jesus, a neighbor entered Clara’s house and with the use of force, raped the feeble minded woman. Pastora Simon, Clara’s mother happened to return to the house and caught De Jesus in the act. The latter managed to escape. Simon reported the incident to the police and her daughter examined by the municipal health officer. De Jesus subsequently surrendered.

During trial, De Jesus testified in his defense. He claimed that he only admitted to the authorities that he had sexual intercourse with Clara due to his maltreatment by the jail guards. De Jesus also testified that he only inserted his finger into Clara’s vagina to cure her mental malady. Clara other hand testified for the prosecution and narrated the events leading to her rape albeit with some difficulty because of her mental condition. Giving great weight to the testimony of Clara, the Circuit Criminal Court of Isabela found De Jesus guilty of rape. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the competency of Clara as a witness.

ISSUE:

Whether the feeble-minded Clara qualifies as a competent witness?

RULING:

It is undisputed that Clara is mentally-ill. It appears in the records that complainant gave sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded by the court and the counsels. The court is satisfied that the complainant can perceive and transmit in her own way her own perceptions to others.

She is a competent witness.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ROLANDO MENDOZA, accused-appellant.

G.R. No. 113791 February 22, 1996

FACTS:

Maria Gina Avila Mendoza, a mother of three young children, was put to fire in her home in Balasing, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, on 22 November 1989. She suffered extensive second to fourth degree burns and died of hypostatic pneumonia and infected fourth degree burns on 30 November 1989. Her husband, accused-appellant Rolando Mendoza, was charged with the crime of parricide.

The prosecution presented as its witnesses Paul Michael Mendoza, a five-year old child of the victim and the accused-appellant; Jhun Avila, Teofisto Avila, and Rodora Avila, the victim's brother, father, and sister, respectively; and Dr. Nieto M. Salvador, the Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). On its part, the defense presented the accused-appellant himself and Erlinda Porciuncula, a childhood friend.

As to how Gina was burned, only five-year old Paul Michael could testify thereon. During his rebuttal testimony on 12 October 1992, Paul Michael categorically declared that it was his father who

"burned" his mother. The accused-appellant, who was drunk at that time, first tied the victim's hands behind her back, then "poured kerosene" on the front of her body and set her aflame.

The court a quo gave full credence to the testimony of eyewitness Paul Michael while rejecting the version of the accused.

ISSUE:

Whether or not conviction was proper based on the child's competency to testify and the credibility of his testimony.

RULING:

Yes. With respect to the disqualification of children to be witnesses, Section 21(b) Rule 130 of the Rules of Court reads: “The following persons cannot be witnesses: xxx (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully”.

It is thus clear that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined.

The requirements then of a child's competency as a witness are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. And in ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing requirements, it is settled that the trial court is called upon to make such determination.

The trial court has adjudged Paul Michael competent to testify. We agree. A close and careful examination of the testimony of Paul Michael shows that at the time he testified, he could be deemed a child of above average intelligence, i.e., capable of giving responsive answers to the questions asked of him by the trial judge, as well as recalling events and relating them to such recollections.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

LESTER BENJAMIN S. HALILI, Petitioner, vs.

CHONA M. SANTOS-HALILI and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

GR. No. 165424 April 16, 2008

FACTS:

Lester Benjamin S. Halili filed a petition to declare his marriage to respondent Chona M. Santos-Halili null and void on the basis of his psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage in the RTC.

He alleged that he wed respondent in civil rites thinking that it was a joke. After the ceremonies, they never lived together as husband and wife, but maintained the relationship. However, they started fighting constantly a year later, at which point petitioner decided to stop seeing respondent and started dating other women. Immediately thereafter, he received prank calls telling him to stop dating other women as he was already a married man. It was only upon making an inquiry that he found out that the marriage was not fake.

The RTC found petitioner to be suffering from a mixed personality disorder, particularly dependent and self-defeating personality disorder, as diagnosed by his expert witness, Dr. Natividad Dayan. The court a quo held that petitioners personality disorder was serious and incurable and directly affected his capacity to comply with his essential marital obligations to respondent. It thus declared the marriage null and void. On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court on the ground that the totality of the evidence presented failed to establish petitioners psychological incapacity.

The case was elevated to the Supreme Court via a petition for review under Rule 45 who affirmed the CAs decision and resolution upholding the validity of the marriage.

Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating his argument that his marriage to respondent ought to be declared null and void on the basis of his psychological incapacity. He stressed that the evidence he presented, especially the testimony of his expert witness, was more than enough to sustain the findings and conclusions of the trial court that he was and still is psychologically incapable of complying with the essential obligations of marriage.

ISSUE:

Whether or not decision of the Regional Trial Court should be reinstated.

RULING:

YES. The Court reiterated that courts should interpret the provision on psychological incapacity (as a ground for the declaration of nullity of a marriage) on a case-to-case basis guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines and by decisions of church tribunals.

In the case of Te, this Court defined dependent personality disorder as: a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of dependent and submissive behavior. Such individuals usually lack self-esteem and frequently belittle their capabilities; they fear criticism and are easily hurt by others comments. At times they actually bring about dominance by others through a quest for overprotection.

Dr. Dayan stated in her report that petitioners dependent personality disorder was evident in the fact that petitioner was very much attached to his parents and depended on them for decisions.

Petitioner’s mother even had to be the one to tell him to seek legal help when he felt confused on what action to take upon learning that his marriage to respondent was for real. Ultimately, Dr. Dayan concluded that petitioner’s personality disorder was grave and incurable and already existent at the time of the celebration of his marriage to respondent.

From the foregoing, it has been shown that Dr. Dayan’s testimony that petitioner is suffering from psychological incapacity is more than sufficient as basis for the declaration of nullity of the marriage. Accordingly, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is declared null and void.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ circumstance of craft and special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship of the parties in the imposition of penalty because it noted that they were not alleged in the information. Hence, this Code as amended by R.A. No.7659 are in the nature of qualifying circumstances because they alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty. As special qualifying circumstances they must be nature and cause of the accusation against him. Appellant cannot be charged with committing the crime of rape in its simple form and then be tried and convicted of rape in its disqualified form. Thus, the CA correctly disregarded the qualifying circumstance of minority.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL CAPACITY OR IMMATURITY

➢ The following persons cannot be witnesses:

a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;

b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.

c) ➢ Regardless of the nature or cause of mental disability, the test of competency to testify is as to whether the individual has sufficient understanding to appreciate the nature and obligation of an oath and sufficient capacity

d) to observe and describe correctly the facts in regard to which he is called to testify.

➢ Basic requirements of a child‘s competency as a witness:

a) Capacity of observation;

b) Capacity of recollection;

c) Capacity of communication.

e) • In ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing requirements, it is settled rule that the trial court is called upon to make such determination.