PEOPLE VS.

GALLENO

Facts:

Evelyn Obligar, 5-year old, together with her younger brother, 3-year old
Eleazar, was left under the care and custody of their uncle and aunt. One
day, only Evelyn and Eleazar were left home since their aunt and uncle
(Emetario and Penicola Obligar) had to go to work as sugarcane plantation
workers.

Accused-appellant passed by the Obligars' residence and found the two

children left to themselves. The prosecution and the defense presented
conflicting versions on what occurred at said residence. However, the
result is undisputed. Evelyn sustained a laceration in her vagina which
result in profuse, and life-threatening bleeding due to her tender age.

The prosecution's version of what took place at the Obligars' residence is

based on the testimony of Evelyn herself, her uncle Emetario, and the
doctors who examined and treated her. Evelyn testified that after lowering
her shorts, the accused made her sit on his lap, facing him. As Evelyn was
only five-years old while appellant was fully-grown man, the penetration
caused the child's vagina to bleed, making her cry in pain. Appellant tried
to stop the bleeding by applying, with his finger, the sap of "madre de
cacao" leaves on her vagina. Unsuccessful in his attempt, he left Evelyn
grimacing and crying in pain. Shortly, Emeterio and Penicola came home
from work. They arrived to find Evelyn crying. Emetario noticed that there
was blood in Evelyn's dress and she was pressing a rug against her genital
organ. Emeterio asked Evelyn what happened but she did not answer.
Emetario spread the child's legs and saw that her vagina had been
lacerated and blood was oozing therefrom. He summoned a "quack" doctor
who applied herbal medicine on Evelyns's vagina but did not stop the
bleeding.
For the succeeding days, Evelyn was brought to several doctors who made
the same findings that Evelyn suffered vaginal laceration and hemorrhage
which could have been caused by the forcible insertion of a blunt
instrument into the vagina, like a finger or a penis of a man in full erection.

Emetario and Penicola Obligar brought Evelyn to the Maayon Police Station
where they reported the crime. Accused was apprehended and eventually
charged with statutory rape. Trial on the merits ensued, resulting in a
judgment of conviction.

Seeking to reverse the judgment, accused-appellant contends that the

testimony of the three expert witnesses presented by the prosecution,
which convinced the trial court that rape was committed against the
offended party, is not impeccable considering that they found that there
was no presence of spermatozoa, and that they were not sure as to what
caused the laceration in the victim's vagina; that one of the doctors herself
testified that Evelyn told her that it was the finger of accused-appellant
which caused the laceration. In addition, accused-appellant banks on the
victim's testimony on cross-examination, that it was the finger of accused-
appellant which caused the laceration; and that she even disclosed this to
accused-appellant's father.

ISSUE: Whether expert testimony be given weight on rape cases.

HELD: Yes.

As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or
give opinions. It is the court's duty to draw conclusions from the evidence
and form opinions upon the facts proved. However, conclusions and
opinions of witnesses are received in many cases, and are not confined to
expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special
skill or expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the
subject matter under observation, of for other reasons, the testimony will
aid the court in reaching a judgment.

In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with
the aid of the expert testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the
possible cause of the victim's laceration, but also the testimony of the other
prosecution witness, especially the victim herself. In other words, the trial
court did not rely solely on the testimony of the expert witnesses. Such
expert testimony merely aided the trial court in the exercise of its judgment
on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated various possible
causes of the victim's laceration does not mean the trial court's
interference is wrong.

Section 4, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that e vidence must
have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence
or nor-existence. This simply means that relevancy is determinable by the
rules of logic and human experience. There is no precise and universal test
of relevancy provided by law. However, the determination of whether
particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court,
which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday
experience.
PEOPLE VS. SAMONTANEZ

FACTS:

This is an automatic review of the decision in a criminal case convicting

the accused- appellant Roberto with the crime of rape with homicide
sentencing him with the penalty of death.

On Nov. 25, 1995, Corazon delas Alas saw her daughter, the 18-year-old
Lolita, off to school from their residence. In the evening of the same day
Lolita’s lifeless and naked body was found in the middle of a sugar cane
plantation Lolita was apparently raped before the attacker ended her life.

Nobody witnessed the actual commission of the grisly crime. However,

police investigation reveals that Roberto was seen at around 6:30 o clock in
the evening on November 25, 1995 while he was in the act of coming out of
the sugar cane plantation near the place where the dead body of Lolita was
later found. Other witnesses testified that they saw Roberto passed
through the same path along the cane field where Lolita was last seen.

On November 28, 1995, Roberto was fetched by the police authorities of

Nasugbu, Batangas from his workplace at Hermogenes Trading. During the
investigation at the Police Headquarters, Roberto admitted to the police
that the other personal belongings of Lolita delas Alas were inside his bag
that was left at his workplace. A follow-up investigation conducted by the
Nasugbu police authorities led to the recovery of the said personal
belongings of the victim. The bag of Roberto was recovered, containing an
Omax wrist watch, a Joop cologne and a pawnshop receipt for a gold ring
that was subsequently redeemed by SPO2 Masikat for P500.00. The 3
articles were positively identified during the trial of the case by Corazon as
belonging to her daughter, Lolita. The police also found a balisong and a
Barangay Clearance inside the black bag of Roberto.

He confessed during custodial investigation that he committed the crime.

Roberto was formally charged in court with the crime of rape with
homicide. Roberto initially entered a plea of not guilty, but later on
withdrew his earlier and pleaded guilty.

In his Brief, appellant Roberto assails the validity of his plea of guilty to the
charge in the information in this case for having been improvidently made.
The record shows that the trial court relied on a) the appellant’s plea of
guilty to the crime of rape with homicide as charged in the information and
b) the evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial of the instant
case.

ISSUE: Whether the pieces of evidence (belongings of Lolita) are

admissible.

HELD: No.

The trial court lamentably considered pieces of evidence that are

inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.
The facts show that the appellant Roberto was actually arrested by police
authorities at his workplace. It does not appear from the record that the
appellant was apprised of his constitutional rights during the police
custodial investigation which are enshrined in the Constitution. It also
does not appear that he was assisted by counsel during the said custodial
investigation. In the absence of a valid waiver, any confession obtained
from the appellant during the police custodial investigation relative to the
crime, including any other evidence secured by virtue of the said
confession is inadmissible in evidence even if the same was not objected to
during the trial by the counsel of the appellant. Thus, the personal
belongings of the victim namely: Omax wristwatch, gold ring and Joop
cologne were recovered and found inside the bag of the appellant when the
police authorities returned to the appellant’s place of work after they
illegally obtained a confession from the appellant, are inadmissible in
evidence.

Under the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree, once the primary source
( the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
derivative evidence (the fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated
otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the
illegal act, whereas the fruit of the poisonous tree is the indirect result of
the same illegal act. The fruit of the poisonous tree is at least once
removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible.
The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the
State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally
illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OSCAR M. DOCUMENTO

FACTS:

Documento was charged before the RTC with two (2) counts of Rape. Upon
arraignment, Documento pled not guilty. Subsequently, however, he
changed his earlier plea to one of guilt. As such, the RTC ordered a re-
arraignment and entered appellants plea of guilt to the charges.Thereafter,
the prosecution presented evidence consisting of the testimonies of private
complainant herself, AAA, her mother, BBB, and Dr. Johann A. Hugo.

Documento testified as the sole witness for the defense. He

asseverated that he pled guilty to the crime of Rape only because
Prosecutor Salise convinced him to do so. Documento contended that he
did not rape AAA, and that, to the contrary, they had a consensual, sexual
relationship. He further alleged that the incident did not happen in
Butuan City, but in Clarin, Misamis Occidental.

The RTC rendered judgment convicting Documento of both counts of

Rape.

Ruling on the appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs conviction, but

changed the penalty imposed on Documento from death penalty to
reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE: Whether or not the courts have territorial jurisdiction over the
crimes.

HELD:

Contrary to the insistence of Documento that the prosecution failed to

establish that the two (2) counts of Rape were perpetrated in Butuan City,
the CA pointed to specific parts of the records which show that, although
AAA did not specifically mention Butuan City in her testimony, the
incidents in the present cases transpired in Barangay Antongalon and on
Ochoa Avenue, both in Butuan City.

The inclusion of the two Barangays in the City of Butuan is a matter

of mandatory judicial notice by the trial court. Section 1 of Rule 129 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence provides
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A
court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the
official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws
of nature, the measure of time, and the
geographical divisions.
PEOPLE v. PAULINO SEVILLENO

FACTS:

Appellant Paulino Sevilleno was charged for rape with homicide,

committed against the 9 year old Virginia Baquia. He pleaded guilty during
the arraignment as assisted by PAO lawyers. Taking advantage of typhoon
"Pepang" that struck the island of Negros, the accused escaped from
detention. The court then directed that the accused be tried in absentia
and counsel was relieved from his responsibility to his client and the
court. The prosecution presented the examining physician as well as Maria
Lariosa and Norma Baquia. Notably, these witnesses were not cross-
examined because, as already adverted to, Atty. Pabalinas earlier excused
himself from the case. Neither did the court appoint another counsel for
the accused. Thereafter, he was recaptured. The RTC convicted appellant.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution failed to establish that the crime
happened within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

HELD:

The court below also erred in disregarding the testimony of Norma Baquia
"for the reason that her testimony failed to establish that the incident
happened within the territorial jurisdiction of this court." The court did not
consider her testimony purportedly because she only testified that her
sister Virginia went with the accused to Guindali-an without specifying as
to what municipality or city it was part of. Again, this is error. Section 1,
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court requires courts to take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and geographical
divisions of our country. There is only one Sitio Guindali-an, Brgy.
Guadalupe, San Carlos City (Negros Occidental).
PEOPLE VS TUNDAG

FACTS:

Mary Ann Tundag filed two separate complaints for incestuous rape against his
father, Tomas Tundag. Complainant is a 13 year old girl who does not know
how to read and write and has an IQ of 76% which is a very low general mental
ability and was living with her father. She alleged that she was raped twice.
After the commission of the second rape, Mary Ann went to her neighbor Bebie
Cabahug and told her what happened to her. They reported this to the police
and was later examined by a doctor who concluded that she was not a virgin
anymore. The accused denies and contends that he was working and went
home tired. Appellant was found guilty of qualified rape, and penalty of death
was imposed.

ISSUE:

1. Whether imposition of death penalty is correct.

2. Whether judicial notice of age of victim is proper.

HELD:

1. No.

Rape of minor daughter by her father is qualified rape and heinous

crime. It was sufficiently alleged and proven that the offender was the
victim’s father. However, the victim’s age was not properly and
sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt. She testified that she
was thirteen years old at the time of the rapes. However, she admitted
that she did not know exactly when she was born because her mother
did not tell her. She further said that her birth certificate was likewise
with her mother. For failure to secure birth certificate, court request for
judicial notice that the victim is below 18 years old. However, the court's
judicial notice is erroneous.

2. No.
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may
properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.
Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may either be mandatory or
discretionary. With respect to other matters not falling within the
mandatory or discretionary judicial notice, the court can take judicial
notice of a fact pursuant to the procedure in Section 3 of Rule 129:
Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court,
on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention
to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its
own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any
matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case.

In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper,

despite the defense counsel’s admission, thereof acceding to the
prosecution’s motion. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any
other matters such as age, a hearing is required before courts can
take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the age of the victim may
be proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the
absence thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or
destroyed, by other documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the
purpose.

There's a need for independent proof of the age of the victim, aside from
testimonial evidence from the victim or her relatives. The minority of the
victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime
itself. Considering the statutory requirement in Section 335 of RPC, the
failure to sufficiently establish victim's age by independent proof is a bar
to conviction for rape in its qualified form. Appellant was convicted of
simple rape, sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE v LIBAN

FACTS:

Nerissa, private complainant, filed a complaint against Manuel Liban

(father). Informations were filed against Liban for 2 counts of rape
committed againt Nerissa. in the said infromations, the following were
stated: “…the above-named accused with lewd designs, by means of force
and intimidation and taking advantage of his moral ascendency over his
12 year old daughter Nerissa Liban, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, had sexual intercourse with the said victim
against her will and consent…”. In Criminal Case No. 97-4362, Liban was
acquitted because the incident was not clearly explained, creating
reasonable doubt. In Criminal 97-4363, the court found Liban guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

Liban appealed to the SC, assailing the penalty of death sentence as

an error in the RTC judgment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing death penalty

upon accused-appellant despite failure of the prosecution to prove the
real age of the victim

HELD: YES.

The Court has consistently adhered to the idea that the victim's minority
must not only be specifically alleged in the information but must likewise
be established beyond reasonable doubt during trial. Neither the obvious
minority of the victim, nor the absence of any contrary assertion from the
defense, can exonerate the prosecution from these twin requirements.
Judicial notice of the issue of age, without the requisite hearing conducted
under Section 3, Rule 129, of the Rules of Court, would not be considered
enough compliance with the law. The birth certificate of the victim or, in
lieu thereof, any other documentary evidence, like a baptismal certificate,
school records and documents of similar nature, or credible testimonial
evidence, that can help establish the age of the victim should be presented.
While the declaration of a victim as to her age, being an exception to the
hearsay proscription, would be admissible under the rule on pedigree, the
question on the relative weight that may be accorded to it is another
matter. Corroborative evidence would be most desirable or even essential
when circumstances warrant.

In the instant case, save for the bare testimony of the victim that she
was ten years old at the time of the first rape, nothing else could be elicited
from the records to ascertain the correct age of the victim.

In sum, the Court upholds the decision of the trial court convicting
Manuel Liban of the crime of rape but must reduce, on account of the
insufficiency of proof on the qualifying circumstance of minority of the
victim, the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua.