People v.

Rivera
G.R. 139180 – July 31, 2001
J. Mendoza

Topic: Rights of the Accused – Right to Due Process and Right to a Counsel

Petitioners: People of the Philippines

Respondents: Rolando Rivera

FACTS:
- March 1997 – An information was filed against Respondent Rolando Rivera, resident of
Brgy. Santiago, Lubao, Pampanga, PH, Erlanie Rivera wherein in he is accused of raping
his 13-year old daughter.
- September 30, 1997 - accused-appellant, duly assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged.
- Erlanie’s recount of the rape:
o Erlanie Rivera (complainant and his daughter), testified that in March 1997, her
younger sister, Zaira, was taken by their parents to the Escolastica Romero
Memorial Hospital in Lubao, Pampanga.
o Complainant’s mother stayed with her sister in the hospital, but her father, herein
accused-appellant, went back home to Santiago, Lubao, Pampanga.
o 11:00 PM of the same day, Erlanie was awakened as the accused started kissing her
and fondling her breasts.
o Complainant tried to resist by kicking and pushing accused-appellant, but her
efforts were to no avail.
o Accused-appellant removed her shorts and panty, touched her private parts, and
then had sexual intercourse with her
o After he was through with her, the accused warned her not to tell anyone of what
happened otherwise he will kill her mother and sister.
o Hence, Erlanie did not tell her what had happened because she was afraid of
accused-appellant.
- April 9, 1997 - however, Erlanie, in the presence of her mother, told her aunt, Marietta
Pagtalunan, and her grandmother, Maxima Payumo, that she had been raped by accused-
appellant.
o Referred to Dr. Barin for Physical Examination.
- Cross-examinaton:
o Erlanie testified that she was impregnated by the act, however it was later aborted.
o Also testified that she was only raped once (March 1997).
o Could not remember the exact date, but was sure it was during the time her sister
was hospitalized.
o told the court that she struggled against accused-appellant, kicking and pushing
him, but she was overpowered by her father.
o Erlanie testified that she was 12 years old when she was raped by her father.

- Re-direct examination:
o explained that the discrepancy in her testimony (Mother arriving the next day of the
 rape, but also said that her father slept beside her mother the day of the rape) was
due to her mixing up different occasions.
o The witness backed-up Erlanies accounts.
- Dr. Barin’s examination1, showed that there was an injury in the hymen at the 3 o’clock
position which could possibly have been caused by the insertion of a hard object, such as
a male organ.
o Dr. Barin testified when she went back to see him on May 2, 1997 she suffered
from vaginal bleeding indicative of a threatened abortion.
 During this time abortion did not yet take place.
- May 13, 1997 - Erlanie was subjected to another pregnancy test on but the result was
negative.
o Dr. Barin stated that the vaginal bleeding suffered by complainant could have
caused the abortion of the fetus

- Rivera’s Defense:
o Accused-appellant denied that he raped Erlanie Rivera.
o the rape charge was filed against him because his wife, Evangeline, had a
paramour and resented him because he hurt her.
o He explained that he saw his wife talking with another man in their house and
beat her up on April 1, 1997 because he heard that she had a lover.
o He also said that his wife was angry with him because he had a mistress who stayed
in their house for three weeks.
o He further stated that his wife’s relatives were likewise angry with him because he
caused the lot owned by his father-in-law in Santiago, Lubao, Pampanga to be
registered in his name.
 compelled to sign a waiver of his rights over the land owned by his parents-
in-law.
 The defense also offered as evidence a document, designated as
Waiver of Rights, signed by accused-appellant.
o Concepcion Sayo (defense witness) Mr. Rivera was living with them in Bulacan
the whole month of March 1997.
o The records officer of the Hospital identified a certification that shows that Zaira
indeed was confined in the Hospital from March 1 – 2, 1997.

RTC (June 22, 1999) Decision:

- Guilty beyond reasonable doubt

o Violated Art 335 of the RPC mended by Republic Act 7659, with the attendant
circumstances that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender

1
P.E. FINDINGS:
 —No signs of external Physical Injuries
I.E. FINDINGS:
 HYMEN—healed laceration at 3:00 o’clock
 VAGINA—Admits one finger with ease two
fingers with difficulty UTERUS—not enlarged
LMP—March 3, 1997
Pregnancy Test (+)
 is the father of the victim
o sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death by lethal injection + P75,000
compensatory damages and P50,000 moral damages.
- Hence, the appeal to to the supreme court.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N the lower court failed to observe the constitutional right of Rolando Rivera to
due process and right to counsel (this will be divided into sub-issues because Rivera
believes that his right to due process was violated in various ways.)

A. W/N the RTC Correctly disallowed accused’s counsel from questioning Erlanie
regarding acts of lasciviousness. YES

- During the trial:

o Court: “Only on the matters that she only testified that is only thing you can cross-
examine.”
o Proscecutor: “immaterial to the case.”
o Atty. Mangalindan believes this is vital as he is trying to ‘discredit’ the witness
- The RTC issued an order sustaining the objection:
o Section 6, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence2
o The witness did not testify regarding acts of lasciviousness, therefore she cannot be
asked of this matter because it is not connected with her direct testimony or has any
bearing upon the primary issue.
- The court issued another order, giving the appellant 20 days to appeal, but no appeal was
made during this time.
- Rule 132, §6 of the Revised Rules on Evidence3
- The right of a party to cross-examine a witness is embodied in Art. III, §14(2) of the
Constitution
- The accused shall have the right to meet the witnesses face to face and in Rule 115, §l(f)
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states that, in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses
against him.
- The cross-examination of a witness is essential to test his or her credibility
o The right of the accused to cross-examine a witness is, however, not without limits
but is subject to the rules on the admissibility and relevance of evidence.
- In this case, there is no showing that inquiries regarding other acts of lasciviousness
would have any bearing on the complainant’s credibility or the truth of her claims.

2
“the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.”
3
Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross- examined by the adverse party as to any
matters stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest, bias or the reverse and to elicit all important facts bearing upon
the issue.
 o Petitioner cites Rule 132, sec. 17 of the Revised Rules of Evidence4.
o Only applies to parts of “an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record” which
is given in evidence.
- Erlanie’s cross-examination was postponed several times, because of the failure of the
accused’s counsel to appear during the trial dates.
o When she was cross-examined, the accused’s counsel was thorough with it.

B. W/N the trial judge denied the motion of Atty. Bansil for postponement because
he was biased against him. NO

- Because accused’s private counsel was not present when Dr. Barin testified, Atty. Eddie
Bansil was appointed by the trial court as accused-appellant’s counsel de oficio for that
particular hearing
o Atty. Basil moved for postponement because Atty. Bansil had heard the testimony
of the said witness. Atty. Bansil then decided not to cross-examine Dr. Barin.
- claims that the counsel de oficio was not familiar with the facts of his case and was thus in
no position to cross-examine Dr. Barin.
- Constitution recognizes the accused’s right to competent and independent counsel of his
own choice, his option to secure the services of a private counsel is not absolute.
o The RTC appointed Atty. Bansil a counsel de oficio to represent accused-appellant
on October 6, 1998 because his regular counsel, Atty. Anselmo Mangalindan, was
absent without any explanation.
o Atty. Bansil no longer found it necessary to cross-examine Dr. Barin.
o Accused’s assertion of the witness’ importance is exaggerated as he did not even
specify the questions his counsel wanted to ask him.

C. W/N Trial judge’s questions propounded to him during his cross-examination as

an indication of the latter’s partiality for the prosecution. NO.

- oftentimes necessary in the due and faithful administration of justice for the judge to re-
examine a witness (allows better and clearer judgment.)
- A perusal of the transcript shows that the judge merely wanted to clarify certain points
relating to the defense of accused-appellant and not to establish his guilt.
- In the exercise of sound discretion, he may put such question to the witness as will
enable him to formulate a sound opinion as to the ability or the willingness of the witness
to tell the truth.

D. W/N was denied due process considering the speed with which the trial court
rendered judgment against him (promulgated only after a day). NO

- The decision rendered by the trial court gives a clear account of the facts and the law on
4
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the
same subject matter may be inquired into by the other.
 which it is based.
- the speed with which the trial court disposed of the case cannot thus be attributed to the
injudicious performance of its function5
o The one-day period between the filing of accused- appellants’ memorandum and
the promulgation of the decision was sufficient time to consider their arguments
and to incorporate these in the decision6.

2. W/N Roland Rivera is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. YES

- Guiding principles in adjudicating cases of rape:
o (a) An accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even more difficult
to disprove;
o (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
o (c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

- the lone testimony of a rape victim, by itself, is sufficient to warrant a judgment of
conviction if found to be credible.
o This is because from the nature of the offense
o sole evidence that can usually be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is
the complainant’s testimony

- Trial court found Erlanie’s testimony to be straightforward, natural, and convincing and
accorded the same full faith and credit.
o Erlanie’s narration of events is credible.
o Her narration not only rings true and sincere but is consistent and unshaken on its
material points.
o Complainant’s testimony is fully corroborated by the medical findings
- Complainant’s failure to remember the date of the commission of the rape cannot be
taken against her.
o The exact date when complainant was sexually abused is not an essential element
of the crime of rape.
o For rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, for rapists
respect neither time nor place for carrying out their evil designs.

- Moreover, whether accused-appellant slept alone or with complainant’s mother after
committing the rape of complainant is of no moment as it is a minor point that does not
reflect on the commission of the crime itself
o The rule is that discrepancies and inconsistencies on minor matters neither
impair the essential integrity of the prosecution evidence as a whole nor reflect
on the witness’ honesty.
o May also strengthen because it shows that it was not rehearsed.
- Accused contends that complainant could not have been raped on March 1 or 2, 1997,

5
People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 116239.

6
Id.
 because she had her last menstrual period on March 3, 1998 and thus she could not
have gotten pregnant as a result of the rape.
o Argued that a woman who had her monthly period cannot be impregnated as a result
of sexual intercourse five days before or five days after her last menstruation.
 Accused does not, however, cite any legal or medical authority for his
thesis, except what he claims to be common knowledge
o it must be emphasized that pregnancy is not an element of the crime of rape and is,
therefore, totally immaterial to the question of accused-appellant’s guilt.
- Accused also imputes ill motive on the part of complainant’s mother and her relatives
for bringing charges against him.
o complainant’s mother resented the fact that he used to beat her up out of jealousy
and that he had several paramours in the past
o This is without merit.
 his wife did not testify against him. It was his daughter, complainant,
alone who denounced him in court.
- claim that the motivation for the filing of this case was the animosity of his wife’s relatives
towards him caused by his land-grabbing of their land is likewise without any basis.
o does not necessarily mean they conspired to persecute him.
- Accused-appellant also raises the defense of denial and alibi.
o But the bare denial of accused cannot overcome the positive declarations of
complainant.
o Defense of alibi cannot prosper if it is established mainly by the accused and his
relatives, and not by credible persons

3. W/N the imposition of the Death Penality is correct? NO.

- It is settled that to justify the imposition of the death penalty, both the relationship of the
victim and her age must be alleged and proved.
o In this case, although complainant’s minority has been alleged in the
information, no independent evidence was presented by the prosecution to
prove the same.
o It was only during her cross-examination when she stated that she was 12 years
old at the time she was raped by her father.
o The trial court merely relied that the complainants age was not questioned and her
appearance.
 The trial court can only take judicial notice of the victim’s minority when
the latter is, for example, 10 years old or below.
 The prosecution having failed to present evidence as to complainant’s age,
accused-appellant can be convicted only of simple rape, for which the
penalty is reclusion perpetua.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,

finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape is AFFIRMED with the modification that
accused- appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay complainant
Erlanie Rivera the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages,
and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.