17. PEOPLE v.

GONZALES
FACTS: Spouses Agusto and Fausta Gonzales came to the Barangay
Captain of Barangay Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo to inform the latter that Fausta
Gonzales killed their landlord, Lloyd Penacerrada, in defense of her honor
when Lloyd attempted to rape her, and thus would like to surrender to the
authorities. They were immediately brought to the police substation. Two
days after the incident, Augusto Gonzales voluntarily surrendered for
having been involved in the killing of Lloyd Penacerrada. Dr. Jesus Rojas
who performed the autopsy on the body of Lloyd Penacerrada, revealed
that the victim suffered from 16 wounds comprising 4 punctured wounds,
seven stab wounds and four incised wounds and one lacerated wound.
Before trial (eight months after the incident), one Jose Huntoria who
claimed to have witnessed the killing incident and could identify all the
accused but not specifically who did the hacking and the stabbing,
presented himself to the widow of the victim and volunteered to testify for
the prosecution. A reinvestigation was conducted on the basis of which an
Amended Information naming as additional accused Custodio Gonzales,
Sr., Custodio Gonzales, Jr., Nerio Gonzales, and Rogelio Lanida was filed.
All the accused, except Lanida (who eluded arrest), pleaded not guilty to
the crime.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Custodio Gonzales Sr., the lone
appellant and the father of the five accused, contended that the trial court
erred in convicting him on the basis of the testimony of Jose Huntoria. CA
found no merit in this appeal and imposed reclusion perpetua as penalty.
ISSUE: Whether or not Custodio Gonzales, Sr. should be held criminally
liable based on the testimony of Jose Huntoria.
RULING: No. From his very testimony, Huntoria failed to impute a
definite and specific act committed or contributed by the appellant in the
killing of Lloyd Penacerrada. He even admitted quite candidly that he did

not see who stabbed or who hacked the victim. Thus this principal
witness did not say, because he could not whether the appellant hacked
or stabbed the victim. In fact, Huntoria does not know what specific act
was performed by the appellant. This lack of specificity then makes the
case fall short of the test laid down by Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code
which defines felonies and types thereof.
Besides, Huntorias credibility as a witness is tarnished by the fact that he
only came out to testify eight long months since he allegedly saw the
killing. While ordinarily, the failure of a witness to report at once to the
police authorities the crime he had witness should not be taken against him
and should not affect his credibility, here, the unreasonable delay in
Huntoria coming out endangers doubt on his veracity. Moreover, he
admitted that he was a tenant of the deceased. In this milieu, tenants like
Huntoria are naturally beholden to their landlords and seek ways and
means to ingratiate themselves with the latter.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED. Costs de oficio.
18. PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ

FACTS: BBB left his husband prior to his death and cohabited with
Enrique Ramirez who was separated from his wife and the two had 4
children. BBB took his daughter from her mother-in-law to live with them
in Tondo. BBB doesnt usually stay at home for she earns a living by selling
pails, pans and basins. Enrique Ramirez, on the other hand, is working as a
construction worker near their house, so he goes home every day at noon
for lunch.
AAA alleged that almost every day, Ramirez, would rape her when he goes
home from work. During one of these repeated times of rape, Ramirez did

not know that his 10-year-old son, DDD, who was pretending to be asleep
while he was consummating his lustful desires on AAA, witnessed the
crime. One of their neighbors, Ate Laki, told AAA that she also witnessed
the crime committed to her by her stepfather. DDD told his mother about
this dastardly act of his father but his mother did not believe him. His
mother got angry at AAA instead and slapped her. One day, AAA with
DDD decided to go to the police station and narrated her sexual ordeal
with her stepfather, Ramirez. AAA was also examined at the NBI.
During trial, the prosecution failed to present DDD and Ate Laki as
witnesses, when both, allegedly, were eyewitnessses to the supposed sexual
assault committed upon AAA by Ramirez.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lone testimony of the alleged rape victim,
AAA, is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused, Ramirez.
RULING: Yes. The lone testimony of the victim in the crime of rape if
credible is sufficient to sustain a conviction. It is axiomatic that witnesses
are to be weighed, not numbered. For after all, there is no law which
requires that the testimony of a single witness needs corroboration except
when the law so expressly requires. The additional testimonies of DDD
and Ate Laki are not needed because truth is established not by the
number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.
The pronouncement of the Court in People vs. Martinez aptly elucidates
on this point:
"Over the years, certain principles have been laid down in decisions
involving the analysis and assessment of evidence in cases of rape; and,
having been so often invoked and applied, have become so familiar and
prosaic as to seem platitudinous. Such propositions as that rape is not
normally perpetrated in the presence of third persons; hence, in
prosecutions therefor, the only evidence, against the accused is usually the

testimony of the offended woman herself, her sole testimony being
sufficient for conviction if it rings true and is otherwise credible x x x "