PEOPLE v.

TURCO
MELO, J. | Aug. 14, 2000 | Appeal
APPELLANT: Rodegelio Totong Turco, Jr.
APPELLEE: People of the Philippines
SUMMARY: Turco was convicted of rape. He appealed and argued that court erred in finding
him guilty based only on testimony. Although medical certificate was presented, medicolegal officer was not present at the trial. Court held that, in cases of rape, due to its intimate
nature, primary consideration is credibility of complainants testimony, which standing
alone, even without medical examination, is sufficient to convict.
DOCTRINE: 1. The primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the
credibility of complainants testimony.

2. Court places significance on distinction between admissibility of evidence and its probative value. Since
admissibility is determined by relevance and competence, admissibility is therefore an affair of logic and law.
Probative value or weight given to evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation guided by R133 and
jurisprudence.

FACTS

Rodegelio Turco was charged by RTC Basilan with

the crime of rape. The victim was his 12 year old
second cousin, Escalea Tabada.

Upon reaching home, Escalea heard a call from

outside. She recognized the voice and when she
asked who it was, the party introduced himself as
Turco. When she opened the door, Turco covered
her face with a towel and placed his right hand
on her neck. He led her to her fathers pig pen
where he forced her to lie down and mounted
her. After consummating the act, Turco kissed her
and held her breasts. He threatened her that he will
kill her if she reports the incident. She reported the
incident after 10 days and a complaint was
immediately filed.

At the trial, Turco pleaded not guilty and

presented the sweetheart defense. Trial court
found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer
penalty of reclusion perpetua + Php 50,000 moral
damages.

Turco appealed arguing that Court erred in ruling

that prosecution, based only on affidavits and oral
testimonies, was able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that he committed the crime. Aside from
written statement of complainant before the police
station and her testimony during direct examination,
no other evidence was presented. Although
medical certificate was presented, medico-legal
officer was not present at the trial.

ISSUE

I. Whether or not court can find accused guilty

of rape based only on the testimonies of the
complainant and witnesses YES
II. Whether or not medical certificate is
admissible despite absence of medico-legal
officer - YES

at a tender age, would concoct a story of

defloration.
Sweetheart theory not true, merely concocted by
accused to escape criminal liability. He failed to
introduce independent proof such as love letters,
photos, tokens, mementos, gifts, etc etc etc.

RATIO
I.

II.

3 guiding principles in review of rape cases: 1.

Accusation of rape can be made with facility;
difficult to prove on the part of complainant, more
difficult to disprove for accused 2. In view of
intrinsic nature of rape where only 2 persons are
usually involved, testimony of complainant is given
importance and scrutinized with extreme caution 3.
Evidence of prosecution stands or fails on its own
merits

The primordial consideration in a determination

concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of
complainants testimony. Court held that
testimony of complainant Escalea Tabada must be
given credence:
1. Declarations on the witness stand of rape
victims who are young and immature
deserve full credence.
2. Court also took cognizance of the fact that
complainant was poor and illiterate. Court
believes that these people value their
virginity which like a mirror, once dropped
and broken can no longer be pieced
together not ever. (OMG!)
3. The victims relatively low intelligence
explains the lapses in her testimony. Lapses
should be expected when a person recounts
details of an experience so humiliating and
painful as rape.
4. Victim had no motive to falsely testify
against accused. No woman, especially one

People v Bernaldez
While the medical certificate could be admitted as
an exception to the hearsay rule since entries in
official records constitute exceptions to the hearsay
evidence rule (R130 S4), since it involved an
opinion of one who must first be established as
an expert witness, it could not be given weight or
credit unless doctor who issued it is presented in
court to show his qualifications.

Court places significance on distinction between

admissibility of evidence and its probative value.
Since admissibility is determined by relevance
and competence, admissibility is therefore an
affair of logic and law. Probative value or weight
given to evidence, once admitted, depends on
judicial evaluation guided by R133 and
jurisprudence.

Although medical certificate is an exception to

hearsay rule, thus admissible as evidence, it has
very little probative value due to absence of
examining physician in this case. Nevertheless,
prosecution did not rely solely on medical report.
Reliance was made on testimony of victim which
standing alone even without medical examination is
sufficient to convict.