CHILD WITNESSES

a. PEOPLE V. BISDA, GR No. 140895, 17 Ju! "00#, 40$ SCRA 454

S%a%&'&(% o) %*& +a,%-.
Alma Bisda and Jenny Basilan kidnapped for ransom Angela Michelle
Soriano (6yo). They enticed Angela to follow them by telling her that her parents
were waiting for her in Jollibee. They broght Angela to Jollibee and afterwards to
their residence in !aco" Manila. They asked for # million ransom from the parents of
Angela. Alma was apprehended and her alibi was she was also a $ictim and the
perpetrator was Jenny %ose. Jenny %ose $olntary arri$ed at the !residential Anti&
'rgani(ed )rime Task *orce (!A')T*) where she annonced that she was one of
Alma+s cohorts.
The prosection presented Angela as witness.
The accsed were con$icted by the trial cort. 'n appeal" the accsed
contend that the trial cort,s reliance on Angela,s testimony is misplaced becase the
records do not show that Angela had the capacity to distingish right from wrong
when she testified in open cort. The appellants point ot that she was merely si-
years old at the time. Althogh Angela took an oath before she testified" the trial
.dge failed to ask any /estions to determine whether or not she cold distingish
right from wrong" and comprehend the obligation of telling the trth before the cort.
0ence" one of the standards in determining the credibility of a child witness was not
followed. There is" ths" a $eritable dobt that Angela told the trth when she
testified.
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& I--u&.
1hether or not Angela is competent to testify
Ru/(0.
2n this case" Angela was si- years old when she testified. She took an oath to
3tell the trth" the whole trth and nothing bt the trth4 before she testified on direct
e-amination. There was nary a whimper of protest or ob.ection on the part of the
appellants to Angela,s competence as a witness and the prosection,s failre to
propond /estions to determine whether Angela nderstood her obligation and
responsibility of telling the trth respecting the matter of her testimony before the
cort. After the prosection terminated its direct e-amination" the appellants
thereafter cross&e-amined Angela e-tensi$ely and intensi$ely on the matter of her
testimony on direct e-amination.
CHILD WITNESSES
The determination of the competence and capability of a child as a witness
rests primarily with the trial .dge. The trial cort correctly fond Angela a
competent witness and her testimony entitled to fll probati$e weight. Any child
regardless of age can be a competent witness if she can percei$e and percei$ing" can
make known to others" and that she is capable of relating trthflly facts for which
she is e-amined. 2n !eople $. Mendiola"5667 this )ort fond the si-&year&old $ictim
competent and her testimony credible. Also in 8lla $. )ort of Appeals" this )ort
ga$e credence to the testimony of a three&year&old $ictim. 2t has been the consistent
rling of the )ort that the findings of facts of the trial cort" its calibration of the
testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of the probati$e weight thereof" as well
as its conclsions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate corts high
respect if not conclsi$e effect absent clear and con$incing e$idence that the trial
cort ignored" misconstred" or misinterpreted cogent facts and circmstances which
if considered warrants a re$ersal or modification of the otcome of the case. 2n this
case" the )ort finds no basis to de$iate from the findings and conclsions of the trial
cort on the competency of Angela" and the probati$e weight of her testimony.
Appellants mst come to grips with case law that testimonies of child $ictims
are gi$en fll weight and credit. The testimony of children of sond mind is likewise
to be more correct and trthfl than that of older persons. 2n !eople $s. Alba" this
)ort rled that children of sond mind are likely to be more obser$ant of incidents
which take place within their $iew than older persons" and their testimonies are
likely more correct in detail than that of older persons. Angela was barely si- years
old when she testified. )onsidering her tender years" innocent and gileless" it is
incredible that Angela wold testify falsely that the appellants took her from the
school throgh threats and detained her in the 3dirty hose4 for fi$e days. 2n !eople
$. 8ela )r(" this )ort also rled that ample margin of error and nderstanding
shold be accorded to yong witnesses who" mch more than adlts" wold be
gripped with tension de to the no$elty and the e-perience in testifying before the
trial cort.
CHILD WITNESSES
1. PEOPLE V. DE JES2S, GR No. 1"7878, "5 Ju! "00#, 407 SCRA "$5
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& +a,%-.
Ma. )ristina de Jess" fi$e years old" testified that sometime in the month of
Jly 966:" when she was two years old" her father placed his finger in her $agina
while gi$ing her a bath. Still not content" he pt his penis in her $agina on se$eral
occasions while she was sleeping in their room. 0e sally did these when her
mother was not home. ;$en if she felt pain in her pri$ate part" she did not confide to
her mother for fear that her father wold spank her.
%elying on )ristina,s testimony" the trial cort con$icted Maro de Jess for
stattory rape. 'n appeal" accsed assails the decision of the lower cort contending
that the testimony of the complainant is dobtfl considering her age.
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& I--u&.
1hether )ristina is competent as a witness
Ru/(0.
Any child" regardless of age" can be a competent witness if he or she can
percei$e" and percei$ing" can make known his or her perception to others that is" he
or she is capable of relating trthflly facts for which the child is e-amined. The
re/irements of a child,s competence as a witness are< (a) capacity of obser$ation"
(b) capacity of recollection and (c) capacity of commnication. A child may be a
competent witness where he or she has sfficient capacity to nderstand the
solemnity of an oath and to comprehend the obligation it imposes" and where he or
she has sfficient intelligence to recei$e .st impressions as to the facts of which the
child is to testify and relate them correctly" althogh he or she is $ery yong.
)onsidering her tender age" the trial cort seriosly erred in gi$ing credence
to the testimony of Ma. )ristina. She had little" nay nil" independent recollection as
to the incident in Jly" 966:. 2t is likewise a portentos sorce of /andary for a
reasonable mind how a child of sch tender age cold remember how her father
repeatedly inserted his finger into her $agina and that she felt pain by reason thereof"
and yet" when asked why she did not lo$e her father" she replied that it is becase she
spanked her and not becase he hrt her when he inserted his finger or penis. 2n one
=.S. case" the cort held that a child eight years of age was not a competent witness
to testify to an accident that happened to him when he was between for and fi$e
years of age" where he was not a smart" precocios child and had little" if any"
independent recollection as to the facts srronding the accident. 2n the instant case"
the records re$eal that Ma. )ristina is fnctioning on the borderline le$el of
intelligence as reported by the psychologist and social worker of the %eception and
Stdy )enter for )hildren. *rther e-amination of her oral testimony discloses her
le$el of intelligence when at the age of si-" she did not e$en know her birthdate.
CHILD WITNESSES
,. PEOPLE V. GAJO, GR No. 1"7749, 9 3a4,* "000, #"7 SCRA $1"
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& +a,%-.
She is fondly called 8en&den. At fi$e (#) 8en&den" whose fll name is
!recios )astigador" was slim" acti$e and playfl. 'bedient" she cold be depended
pon by her parents to do errands like bying things from the nearby sari&sari store.
'n the >?th of 'ctober 966#" as fate wold ha$e it" a person she and her family
trsted so mch stealthily snatched from her her pristine innocence. She was raped
by her Tito Boy" accsed&appellant Ben @a.o.
Airgilio)astigador" the father of the $ictim" was rinsing the blankets his wife
Belidaleft when the incident happened. That afternoon of >? 'ctober 966# Airgilio
called for his two (>) kids" 8en&den and Bernie 8ame" for their siesta. 1hile he was
fi-ing something" he noticed 8en&den perspiring. 0e trned her o$er to wipe her
back and he saw that her panty was stained with blood. They asked 8en&den what
happened and when she told them what her Tito Boy had done to her"Airgilio
smmoned his wife to come home immediately. 1hen Belida arri$ed Airgilio went
to the Janiay !olice Station to report the incident while she and 8en&den went to the
Janiay8istrict 0ospital.
After trial" the cort fond the accsed gilty of stattory rape. 0e now
assails his con$iction. 0e contends that the trial cort erred in not appreciating his
e$idenceC instead" it ga$e credence to the e$idence of the prosection" the testimony
of 8en&8en" albeit failing to establish his gilt to a moral certainty.
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& I--u&.
1hether the con$iction relying on the child witness, testimony is proper
Ru/(0.
The case for the prosection rested largely on the testimony of the $ictim
herself" fi$e (#)&year old !recios 8en&den )astigador. At the otset she was sworn
to tell the trth and she showed that she nderstood its meaning when she told the
cort that !apa Jess wold be mad at her if she told a lie. The trial cort obser$ed
that she ga$e an honest and straightforward accont of what transpired on that day
she was raped by accsed&appellant.
A child&witness is generally not capable of lying and as long as she can
percei$e and make known her perception her credibility is n/estionable. )hildren
whose mental matrity is sch as to render them incapable of percei$ing the facts
respecting which they are e-amined and of relating them trthflly are not
dis/alified to be witnesses. A child of any age may be permitted to testify so long as
the trial .dge is satisfied that the child possesses the ability to obser$e" recollect and
commnicate. Minor children with capacity to percei$e and make known their
perception can be belie$ed in the absence of any improper moti$e to testify. There is
no rle defining any particlar age at which children may be said to be capable or
incapable of recei$ing accrate impressions and to relate them trthflly. 2n each
instance" the possession or lack of intelligence of an infant to be a witness is to be
determined by sch e-amination as the trial .dge deems necessary for the prpose.
CHILD WITNESSES
5. PEOPLE O+ THE PHIILPPINES 6-. +LORENTINO ESC2LTOR
@.%. Bos. 9?6D66&6E F May >E" >::?
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& +a,%-.
Sometime in 966#" Jenelyn Alcontin " then E years old" was lying on the floor
of their hose in )eb when *lorentino ;scltor" common&law hsband of Jenelyn,s
mother Ginda Alcontin" ndressed her. After remo$ing all her clothing" appellant"
who was already naked" placed himself on top of her and forcibly inserted his organ
on her $agina. !ri$ate complainant cried. After e.aclating" appellant warned her not
to re$eal the incident to anyone otherwise he wold kill her .The incident was
repeated on Janary 9D" >:::. =nable to bear anymore appellant,s bestiality" pri$ate
complainant confided her ordeal to her elder brother Jerry. 0er brother immediately
accompanied her to the 8S18.
The trial cort fond Jenelyn,s testimony positi$e" credible" spontaneos and
straightforward. The trial cort was flly con$inced that she was telling the trth
when she testified in cort. 'n the other hand" the trial cort fond appellant,s denial
nworthy of belief. The trial cort held that appellant committed stattory rape since
the prosection established that appellant had se-al intercorse with the $ictim who
was below twel$e (9>) years old. 2n imposing the death penalty" the trial cort
considered appellant,s li$e&in relationship with the $ictim,s mother copled with the
$ictim,s age as attendant circmstances.
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& I--u&-.
1hether or not Jenelyn,s testimony on what transpired on 9D Janary >:::
was nothing bt a mere general narration withot specifically telling the chain of
e$ents
1hether or not there was e$en no mention of penetration or the insertion of
appellant,s penis in her $agina
Ru/(0.
The petition is withot merit.

Jenelyn testified that appellant placed himself on top of her while she was
lying on the floor. 0e plled off his pants and ndressed Jenelyn. Appellant made
psh and pll mo$ements at which point Jenelyn cried becase she felt pain. 1hen
asked by the prosector whether 3the organ of appellant was actally inserted into
her se- organ"4 Jenelyn replied 3Hes.4
CHILD WITNESSES
A /estion that sggests to the witness the answer" which the e-amining party
wants" is a leading /estion. As a rle" leading /estions are not allowed. 0owe$er"
the rles pro$ide for e-ceptions when the witness is a child of tender years as it is
sally difficlt for sch child to state facts withot prompting or sggestion.
Geading /estions are necessary to coa- the trth ot of their relctant lips. The
prosector asked leading /estions to Jenelyn as she was yong and nlettered"
making the recall of e$ents difficlt" if not ncertain. Jenelyn was only 99 years old
the second time appellant se-ally assalted her and 9> years old when she testified
in cort. 0er edcational attainment is only @rade 9.
The trend in procedral law is to gi$e wide latitde to the corts in e-ercising
control o$er the /estioning of a child witness. The reasons are spelled ot in or
%le on ;-amination of a )hild 1itness" which took effect on 8ecember 9#" >:::"
namely" (9) to facilitate the ascertainment of the trth" (>) to ensre that /estions are
stated in a form appropriate to the de$elopmental le$el of the child" (D) to protect
children from harassment or nde embarrassment" and (?) a$oid waste of time.
Geading /estions in all stages of e-amination of a child are allowed if the same will
frther the interests of .stice.
Althogh Jenelyn,s testimony was not perfect in all details" it bore the
earmarks of trth. She was not sophisticated enogh to fabricate the crime of rape
against her mother,s li$e&in partner. The re$elation of a yong and innocent child
whose chastity was absed deser$es fll credit. Srely" Jenelyn wold not concoct a
story of defloration" allow the e-amination of her pri$ate parts and e-pose herself to
the hmiliation of a pblic trial if she was not moti$ated solely by a desire to
$indicate her honor. As the )ort has stressed in nmeros cases" when a woman or a
child $ictim says that she has been raped" she in effect says all that is necessary to
show that rape was indeed committed. At any rate" if the defense wanted to ob.ect on
the grond that leading /estions were being asked the $ictim" they cold ha$e done
so. 0owe$er" they did not. Ths" appellant wai$ed the defense based on this grond.
CHILD WITNESSES
&. PEOPLE O+ THE PHILIPPINES 6-. RODITO DAGANIO
@.%. Bo. 9DEDI# F Janary >D" >::>
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& +a,%-.
The $ictim Airgie 8aganio testified that her father (accsed&appellant) raped
her se$eral times in their hose. 0er first defilement was in the month of 8ecember"
bt she cold no longer recall what year it was. The second rape took place in the
e$ening of September 6" 966?. She was then 99 years old. That night" her mother
(Gareta) was in !ikalawag" Ganao del Borte. The $ictim was playing with her
yonger siblings when the accsed&appellant told her to go inside the hose. She
obeyed him. 2nside their hose" the accsed&appellant first placed his finger in her
$agina becase it was too small. Be-t" he inserted his penis. 0alf of the penis
penetrated her. After the se-al assalt" he warned her not to tell anyone abot the
rape or he wold ct her neck. 8espite the threat" the $ictim related her harrowing
e-perience to her mother" Gareta 8aganio.
The accsed&appellant claims that the prosection proponded leading
/estions on the $ictim. 0e asserts that had the trial cort sstained the timely
ob.ections of his consel" the $ictim wold not ha$e been able to establish the rape.
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& I--u&.
1hether or not the cort a /o erred in gi$ing credence to the testimony of Airgie
Ru/(0.
2t is tre that leading /estions are generally not allowed and ha$e little
probati$e $ale. 0owe$er" Section 9:" %le 9D> of the %les of )ort pro$ides<
3Sec. 9:.Geading and misleading /estions. & A /estion which
sggests to the witness the answer which the e-amining party desires is
a leading /estion. 2t is not allowed" e-cept< - - -
(c) 1hen there is difficlty in getting direct and intelligible answers
from a witness who is ignorant" or a ,*/5 o) %&(5&4 !&a4-" or is of
feeble mind" or a deaf mte. - - -.4
2n the case at bar" the $ictim was twel$e years old when she testified in cort.
1hen most children her age were already in @rade A2 of elementary edcation" she
was only in @rade 222. 1e can also glean from her testimony that she cold not grasp
the legal concept of 3rape.4 Ths" the trial .dge correctly allowed the prosector to
ask leading /estions to ferret ot the trth.
The trend in procedral law is to gi$e wide latitde to the corts in e-ercising
control o$er the /estioning of a child witness. The reasons are spelled ot in or
%le on ;-amination of a )hild 1itness" namely" (9) to facilitate the ascertainment
of the trth" (>) to ensre that /estions are stated in a form appropriate to the
de$elopmental le$el of the child" (D) to protect children from harassment or nde
embarrassment" and (?) a$oid waste of time. Geading /estions in all stages of
e-amination of a child are allowed if the same will frther the interests of .stice.
The totality of the e$idence presented shows beyond reasonable dobt that
the accsed&appellant raped the $ictim on September 6" 966?.
CHILD WITNESSES
). PEOPLE O+ THE PHILIPPINES VS. RODERIC7 LEGASPI
@. %. Bo. 9DE>ID F *ebrary 9E" >::D
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& +a,%-.
'n Jly D" 966E" at arond 6<:: p.m." accsed&appellant" together with his
father %ogelio and two others" had a drinking spree at their family hose in Tarlac.
At arond I<:: p.m." he asked the more than 6&year old )ristina )astaneda" the niece
of his father,s common law wife Brigida!agsibagan" to go ot with him for a few
mintes. )ristina obliged and the two left the hose.
As two hors had elapsed and accsed&appellant and )ristina had not yet
retrned" Brigida started looking for them. She later went to the barangay hall to
report the matter.
Abot past 99<:: p.m." accsed&appellant and )ristina retrned home.
)ristina" who was silent" with her arms placed 3across her breast"4 was already
garbed in accsed&appellant,s t&shirt" withot panty and slippers" and with her head
and back fll of sand. Accsed&appellant on the other hand was only wearing a pair
of wet pants. 1hen Brigida asked them where they came from" )ristina replied that
they came from the ri$er" abot a kilometer away from their hose. And when she
was asked what accsed&appellant did to her" )ristina said that he kissed her" bo-ed
the left portion of her stomach" and let her drink dirty water. 1hile )ristina did not
say that she was se-ally absed" gi$en her appearance" Brigida broght her and
accsed&appellant" who tried to flee bt was o$ertaken" to the barangay hall.
At the barangay hall" Jagawad ;dilberto Aillane$a asked )ristina what
happened" to which she replied that accsed&appellant broght her to the ri$er and
3went on top of her.4 Aillane$a" Brigida" )ristina and accsed&appellant therepon
proceeded to the mnicipal hall to report the matter to the police who directed that
)ristina be broght to the pro$incial hospital for e-amination. )ristina was ths
immediately broght to the Tarlac !ro$incial 0ospital where she was e-amined by
8r. Ssan %hea Mani/is.
*rom 8r. Mani/is, e-amination of )ristina" the following findings were
noted< ;KT. @;B2TAG2A< absent pbic hair" labia ma.ora completely hiding labia
minora" $estible is erythematosC (L) complete laceration 6,oclock position" (L)
incomplete laceration" >, oclock position" (L) abrasion 6&9: +oclock positionsC post&
forchette A&shaped" (&) bleeding" (&) hematomas.
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& I--u&.
1hether or not the trial cort" in con$icting by the fact that it asked and
allowed the prosection to ask the $ictim leading /estions withot first showing
that there was difficlty in getting direct and intelligible answers from her becase of
tender age
Ru/(0.
As for the trial cort,s allowing the prosection to ask )ristina leading
/estions" no prior proof of difficlty in eliciting intelligible answers from the child
witness is re/ired in order to allow leading /estions. 2t is sfficient that the witness
is shown to be a child of tender years as in )ristina,s case.
CHILD WITNESSES
0. PEOPLE VS. 2GOS, G.R. NO. 181$##
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& +a,%-.
'n Agst 99" 966E" accsed was charged with rape of E year old child" to
which he pled not gilty.
'n the e$ening of Agst E" 966E" accsed" while drnk and looking for
a bolo, asked his stepdaghter" AAA" then se$en years old" to look for her mother at
her grandmother,s place. Bt as her mother was not at her grandmother,s residence"
AAA went to look for her at a neighbor,s hose accompanied by accsed. 0er
mother was not there" either. Accsed therepon held AAA and broght her to a
nearby creek. 'nce there" he ndressed her and then proceeded to insert his finger
into her $agina for times. Thereafter" accsed bit AAA,s face and inserted his penis
into her $agina. Bot content" he held her by the neck and bo-ed her in the face and
stomach. 0e then threatened to kill her if she told her mother abot the incident.
1hen asked pon reaching home abot the lmps on her face" AAA told her
mother that she fell at the waiting shed. The ne-t morning" howe$er" AAA re$ealed
the trth abot her in.ries" relating how accsed&appellant" while holding her neck"
bit and pnched her on the cheek 3casing a swelling and black right eye and brises
on the neck.4 Mother and daghter then reported the incident to" only to be ignored
by" the barangay captain. They then repaired to the police station in Toril to file a
rape complaint before !olice Station )hild and Hoth 'fficer Geonilo Jickain" after
which they proceeded to Barrio )atigan" the scene of the crime. Mother and
daghter pointed to accsed&appellant as the rapist. After a short chase" he was
apprehended and charged.
8r. 8anilo Gedesma testified ha$ing e-amined AAA on Agst 99" 966E. 0is
findings< AAA had sstained contsions on her left eye and on her cheek. She also
had a hemorrhage on both eyeballs. 0e also fond that there was a complete
hymenal laceration at the # and 6 o,clock positions" showing recent genital trama.
Accsed&appellant" the lone witness for the defense" on the other hand"
presented the following story" as smmari(ed in the %T) decision< 'n Agst E"
966E from E A.M. to E !.M. he was in his employer,s hose becase it was their
barrio,s fiesta" that on reaching home at abot E !.M. only 5his7 step5children7 AAA"
E years old" %eggie D years old and 5his7 9: year 5old7 niece were arond. - - - his
wife was not there so he went to their grandmother,s hose alone to get her" that his
wife was not there" that he retrned home at abot I !.M. bt she was not there in
their hose so he went to his ninang 5godmother7 and his neighbors looking for his
wife" that he told the $ictim to go with him to the barrio which was abot one
kilometer from their hose to look for his wife" that he told the $ictim to look for her
mother while he waited in a shed" that the $ictim fell becase the road was dark and
slippery" that his wife was already home when they retrned" that his wife smelled of
li/or that night" that he and his wife /arreled and he hit his wife" that he did not
rape and hit the $ictim" that he does not know why he is charged with rape.

S%a%&'&(% o) %*& I--u&.
1hether the trial cort erred in finding him gilty of the crime of rape instead
of acts of lasci$iosness
CHILD WITNESSES
Ru/(0.
AAA" as fond by both the trial and appellate corts" was ne/i$ocal in her
testimony that she was raped by accsed&appellant. 1hile her mother may ha$e
contradicted AAA,s testimony by stating that AAA reportedly told her she was
merely 3fingered4 by accsed&appellant" it is AAA,s clear and credible testimony that
shold determine accsed&appellant,s gilt. She detailed both in direct and cross&
e-aminations how accsed&appellant $iolated herC she minced no words abot what
accsed&appellant did to her on Agst E" 966E. Accsed does not dispte AAA,s
testimony" arging that she might ha$e been coached in her answers. 0e likewise
states that what AAA and her mother reported to the police was an attempt to rape
AAA. 2t was only when the prosector asked her leading /estions that she testified
that accsed&appellant inserted his penis into her $agina.
The )ort is not persaded by accsed,s contentions for the following
reasons< First" the testimony of !olice 'fficer Jickain" who related that AAA,s
mother approached him on Agst E" 966E while he was on dty as !olice Station
)hild and Hoth 'fficer" has docmentary spport. 0e stated that AAA,s mother
reported that accsed&appellant raped her daghter. Second" accsed&appellant,s
contention is at odds with what are contained in the records" which show that dring
cross&e-amination the trial cort asked AAA what accsed&appellant did to her" as
follows<
1e find that the alleged coaching sed in the corse of e-amining AAA
merely aided her in testifying with more detail and did not sggest to her the answers
integral to the actal commission of rape. 1hat is more" AAA,s charge of rape finds
spport in the medical report on her physical in.ries. The medico&legal witness" 8r.
Gedesma" testified that he e-amined AAA for days after the rape incident and fond
fresh brises on her face and lacerations in her $agina.
Accsed&appellant,s denial of the crime cannot pre$ail o$er the positi$e
testimony of the $ictim. As held in People v. Suarez"a rape $ictim,s straightforward
and candid accont" corroborated by the medical findings of the e-amining
physician" is sfficient to con$ict the accsed. This conclsion becomes all the more
firm where" as in this case" the child&$ictim takes the witness stand. !re$ios
decisions in$ol$ing rape cases ha$e shown s the high improbability that a girl of
tender years wold impte to any man a crime so serios as rape if what she claims
is not tre.
CHILD WITNESSES
*. PEOPLE VS. CANETE, G.R. NO. 14"9#0
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& +a,%-.
'n *ebrary #" 9666" Ale.andra went p the hill to gather camote tops. She
was then armed with a bolo. Alma followed Ale.andra to the hills and re$ealed to her
that Jakingcio raped her on *ebrary 9" 9666. Ale.andra was li$id with rage. She
rshed back to the hose and confronted Jakingcio with the charge of Alma.
Ale.andra and Jakingcio /arreled. She berated him for ha$ing taken ad$antage of
his own flesh and blood. She told him to lea$e the hose. Jakingcio agreed on the
condition that he wold bring his personal belongings with him. After Jakingcio left"
Ale.andra accompanied Alma to the barangay captain and complained against
Jakingcio. The Barangay )aptain wrote a letter to the local police athorities
re/esting assistance to Ale.andra and Alma. 'n *ebrary 6" 9666" 8ra. Bibiana A.
)ardente" the Mnicipal 0ealth 'fficer of )apoocan" Geyte" e-amined Alma. The
doctor prepared and signed a medico&legal certificate on her e-amination of Alma
which contains her findings.
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& I--u&.
1hether or not the testimony of complainant is credible
Ru/(0.
The credibility of the pri$ate complainant was not degraded by her and
Ale.andra )aMete,s reporting the se-al assalt to the police athorities only on
*ebrary #" 9666. The e$idence shows that the pri$ate complainant was only twel$e
years old when she was raped by the appellant. She and her father" who was
completely blind and a paralytic" were li$ing in the hose of the appellant. The latter
threatened to kill her if she re$ealed what he did to her. 2t was ths easy for the
appellant to flfill the threat if she di$lged the $iolation of her honor. The pri$ate
complainant cold do nothing bt cry. 1hen the appellant tried in the e$ening of
*ebrary D" 9666 to $iolate her again" she ran to a neighbor" Ja )aring" di$lged to
her that the appellant tried to rape her anew and soght her help. 2n fact" the pri$ate
complainant slept in the hose of Ja )aring that e$ening and went back home only
the ne-t morning on *ebrary ?" 9666. 'n *ebrary #" 9666" the pri$ate complainant
re$ealed to her Haya Ale.andra" the wife of the appellant" that the latter had raped her.
2n People v. Bea" this )ort held that it is not ncommon for a yong girl at the
tender age of si-teen years to be intimidated into silence and conceal the se-al
assalt on her by the appellant.
/. GENIL VS. RIVERA, A3 3TJ80$81$19
CHILD WITNESSES
S%a%&'&(% o) %*& +a,%-<
'n May D:" >::D" one of complainant,s constitents" Bancy Silfaban
(Bancy)" filed before the MT) of Sta. )atalina" Begros 'riental two criminal
complaints against %oderick Sales" one for rape and the other for forcible abdction
with rape" docketed as )riminal )ase Bos. DE69 and DE6>" respecti$ely. 'n e$en
date" Bancy also filed a criminal complaint against Janice Sales for $iolation of
%epblic Act E69:" otherwise known as the Special !rotection of )hildren Against
)hild Abse" ;-ploitation and 8iscrimination Act" docketed as )riminal )ase Bo.
DE6D.
%espondent condcted a preliminary in$estigation of )riminal )ase Bos.
DE69 and DE6> two and a half months later or on Agst 9D" >::D after the accsed
was ordered to sbmit his conter&affida$it" which preliminary in$estigation was
made in open cort.
8ring the abo$e&said preliminary in$estigation" Bancy" a minor" was called
to the witness stand and" in the corse of her testimony sb.ected to hmiliation as
all those present" inclding respondent" the consel for the defense Atty. Artro
;rames" and S!'? 0erminigildo 'rti( )adngog (S!'? )adngog) of the
!hilippine Bational !olice (!B!) who acted as prosector" were laghing.
Ru/(0.
2t is a fndamental principle that the accsed in a preliminary in$estigation
has no right to cross&e-amine the witnesses which the complainant may present.
Section D" %le 99> of the %les of )ort e-pressly pro$ides that the respondent
shall only ha$e the right to sbmit a conter&affida$it" to e-amine all other e$idence
sbmitted by the complainant and" where the fiscal sets a hearing to propond
clarificatory /estions to the parties or their witnesses" to be afforded an opportnity
to be present bt withot the right to e-amine or cross&e-amine.
2ndbitably then" respondent was remiss in the performance of his dties
when he not only allowed the cross&e-amination of the parties dring the preliminary
in$estigation bt also failed to resol$e the criminal complaints within the period
mandated by law.