FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
148401
November 18, 2003
-versus-
REGINALD M.
GUILLERMO
ALIAS "REGIE,"
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA,
J.:
Reginald M. Guillermo
appeals the April 18, 2001 Decision[1]
of the Regional. Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 8, in Criminal
Case No. 08-1087. The court a quo's decision found him guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of rape, as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds accused, Reginald M. Guillermo, guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua
and to pay Renalyn Guartico and/or her parents the amount of Seventy
Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00)
as civil indemnity and Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as and by way
of Attorney's fees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[2]
The Information,[3]
dated March 20, 1998, charged appellant in these words:
That on or
about October 9, 1997, in the municipality of Gonzaga, Province of
Cagayan,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
with lewd design, by the use of force and intimidation, did then and
there
wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the
offended
party, a woman under twelve years of age, deprived of reason and/or
demented,
all against her will and consent.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During his arraignment
on August 5, 1998, appellant, with the assistance of his counsel,[5]
pleaded not guilty to the charge.[6]
After trial on the merits, appellant was found guilty as
aforementioned.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution presented
witnesses whose testimonies are as follows:
Dr. Mila
Maranta,
the Municipal Health Officer of Gonzaga, Cagayan, who testified that
she
examined the complainant on October 10, 1997, approximately two hours
after
the alleged sexual assault. The examination revealed that complainant
sustained
full thickness lacerations with bleeding which appeared to have been
caused
by forceful penetration of a hard object, possibly a penis, indicating
that complainant is a possible victim of sexual abuse. It was noted
therein
that there was still fresh blood and profuse bleeding during the
examination.[7]
Her report reads thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
mentally
retarded
Genital
Examination:
Positive active bleeding at the hymen; full thickness laceration with
bleeding
noted at 12, 01, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 o'clock positions.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Carmencita Omotoy
Guartico,
50 years old and a resident of Barangay Amunitan, Sta. Ana, Cagayan,
testified
that she is the mother of complainant. At around 4:00 p.m. of October
9,
1997, she was sitting at the terrace of their house together with her
husband,
Renato Guartico, and her sister-in-law, Josefina Omotoy. She noticed
her
daughter, complainant Renalyn, running after their dog outside their
fence.
Thirty minutes later, she again saw Renalyn in front of their gate,
stooping
and asking for her father. She asked her daughter where she had been,
and
Renalyn answered that she had been raped. This information was conveyed
to her by her daughter by the latter holding her buttocks and making a
pumping motion backward and forward. Carmencita then pulled down
Renalyn's
shorts and saw blood on the genital area and buttocks. Renalyn pointed
to the direction of the house of the Guillermos, which was forty meters
away. She motioned to her mother that someone covered her mouth, made a
slashing gesture across her throat, and inserted his hands under her
shorts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon seeing her child
in this condition, Carmencita ran towards the road to see if her
husband
had already arrived. She found her husband and told him that something
happened to their daughter. Her husband followed her back to their
house
and likewise pulled down the shorts of Renalyn to see where the blood
was
coming from. Then, her husband put the child's shorts back on and
carried
her daughter to the house of the Guillermos. Upon reaching the said
house,
they saw a person asleep with his head on the table in front of the
house.
They did not recognize the person, so they asked Emelita Guillermo, the
accused's mother, who this person was. They were told that the person's
name is Joey Villegas and that he was dead drunk. Her husband then
carried
their daughter upstairs to where she was pointing. Carmencita testified
that she remained downstairs and waited for her husband and daughter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter, they brought
their daughter to the Don Alfonso Ponce Enrile Memorial District
Hospital
in Gonzaga, Cagayan where she was examined. They arrived in the
hospital
before 6 p.mAfter their daughter was examined, they proceeded to the
Gonzaga Police Station and reported that their daughter was raped. They
returned home at around 7:00 p.m., accompanied by two policemen, and
immediately
went straight to the house of the Guillermos and asked Mr. and Mrs.
Guillermo
if the person named Joey Villegas was still there. The spouses
Guillermo
replied that Joey Villegas had already left at around 6:30 p.m. The two
policemen then told the spouses Guillermo that they were inviting all
those
who were in the house during the alleged incident to the police station
the next day.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the afternoon of
October 10, 1997, Feliciano Guillermo, Reginald Guillermo, the barangay
captain of Amunitan, Abraham Gallardo, Joey Villegas, and Nanding
Taguba
went to the police station in Gonzaga. Carmencita testified that she
was
also there together with her husband and daughter, Renalyn. Her
daughter
was then asked in Ilocano by the Chief of Police to point to the person
who allegedly raped her. Carmencita saw her daughter approach the
accused
and hold his hand. Then, her daughter pointed to the accused and said
in
Ilocano that he was the one who raped her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Again, on October 11,
1997, another confrontation was held at the police station. Reginald
Guillermo,
Abraham Gallardo, Onioc Palor, Joey Villegas, Feliciano Guillermo,
Randy
Castillo, and two other persons who were allegedly at the house of the
Guillermos on the day of the alleged incident were made to appear at
the
police station where the Chief of Police again asked the complainant to
point to the person who raped her. According to Carmencita, her
daughter
once again pointed to Reginald Guillermo and allegedly even touched the
latter.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Renalyn
Guartico was 11 years old when she took the witness stand. The
prosecution
manifested before complainant was called to the witness stand that she
will try her best to testify orally. Although, she will mostly testify
through sign language. Complainant was first asked if she knew 'Egie',
the appellant. Complainant answered by uttering, "Oh." She was then
asked
to step down from the witness stand and touch the accused, which she
did.
Upon being asked what the accused did to her, complainant caressed her
legs and said, "Daya." The prosecution counsel then made some gestures
indicating having sex and asked complainant if accused did that to her.
Complainant responded by making a circle with her thumb and forefinger,
then inserted her other forefinger into it. She then pushed and pulled
the forefinger in and out of the circle. Then, prosecution counsel
brought
his forefinger at his neck, making a slashing motion, and asked
complainant
if the accused did that to her. Complainant nodded her head and
imitated
the prosecution counsel's gestures. The latter then put his forefinger
on his lips and asked if the accused asked her to keep silent.
Complainant
nodded her head in answer. Finally, prosecution counsel held his hands
behind him in a cross position and asked complainant if accused held
her
hands that way. Complainant again nodded her head in response to the
question.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For its part, the defense
presented the following witnesses, who testified, thus:
Emelita
Guillermo,
38 years old and a housewife, testified that she is the mother of
appellant.
On October 9, 1997, she arrived at her house in Amunitan, Gonzaga at
around
10:00 a.m. together with her children Reylife, Reygil, Reynold, and
Reycis,
having came from a wake. Her other son, Reginald, the accused in this
case,
was not with them. He was allegedly out fishing. Although appellant was
enrolled for that school year, he did not go to school that day because
he did not have any money for transportation going to school.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When Emelita and
her
children got home from the wake of a certain Andres Manuel, they saw
some
men drinking gin in front of their house. They were Randy Castillo,
Ernesto
Palor, Jr., Joey Villegas, and Rodel Manuel. These men also came from
the
wake. They stayed in the house of the Guillermos until 4:00 p.m. After
the men had left, Emelita testified that Carmencita and Renato Guartico
went to their house together with their daughter Renalyn. They started
asking about the whereabouts of her son, Reginald. She told them that
her
son was not at home. Thereafter, Renato Guartico asked permission to go
up the stairs of their house. She went upstairs with them and there,
she
saw Renato Guartico ask his daughter where she was molested. Renalyn
responded
by just waving her hand. Afterwards, they all proceeded downstairs and
encountered a person sleeping in their yard. Carmencita and Renato
asked
the witness who that person was. She answered that the person was Joey
Villegas. The couple and their daughter thereafter left.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At around 6:00
p.m.,
appellant arrived home. She asked him where he came from. He answered
that
he had just come from fishing. She then told him that Carmencita and
Renato
Guartico had been looking for him earlier that day. He asked her why
and
she responded that the spouses Guartico claimed that he raped their
daughter,
Renalyn. Allegedly, her son responded, "Oh, I [should] be ashamed."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The next morning,
Reginald
went to school. On that day, Carmencita Guartico again came to their
house
and said that they want to take appellant to the town proper. Emelita
answered
that they could not take appellant with them because he was in school.
Eventually, her husband fetched their son from his school and brought
him
to the police station as requested by the Guarticos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, Emelita
testified
that her family and the Guarticos used to be in good terms with each
other
until the Guarticos started claiming that they own the land on which
the
Guillermos' house stands. According to Emelita, they were asked by the
Guarticos to vacate the land, but her family refused. The land is
allegedly
the property of a certain Barangay Captain Bumanglag, from whom the
Guillermos
sought the permission to build their house on the said land.[11]
The second witness for
the defense was Reginald M. Guillermo himself. Appellant was 18 years
old,
single, and a student when he testified. He alleged that on October 9,
1997, at 10:00 a.m., he was fishing for freshwater fish at the
ricefield
of one Berto Julian. He was with his friend, Michael Esteban. Although
it was a school day and he was enrolled for that school year, he did
not
attend his classes that day since he did not have any money for
transportation
going to school.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to appellant,
the ricefield was only three to four kilometers from their house. After
fishing, he helped the mother of Michael Esteban with the threshing of
the palay. He did not return to their house until 6:00 p.m. From 10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., he never left the ricefield of Berto Julian. When he
arrived at his house, he saw his parents and some visitors. One of
these
visitors is Joey Villegas. He was told by his parents that something
happened
to the daughter of their neighbor, Carmencita. He was likewise told by
his parents that the Guarticos were accusing him of raping their
daughter.
He told his parents that he did not do it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The next day, he went
to school. After his classes, as he was on his way home, he was met by
his father who told him that he must go to the police station since he
was needed there to answer some questions. Hence, he proceeded to the
police
station accompanied by his father and two other men, including one
Nanding
Taguba. Upon their arrival there, he saw the other men who were at
their
house the previous day. These men were Randy Castillo, Rodel Manuel,
Ernesto
Palor, Jr., and Joey Villegas. He also saw there Renato Guartico,
Carmencita
Guartico, and their daughter, Renalyn. The policemen first asked him
and
the other men to sit on a bench. Then, Renato Guartico asked his
daughter,
both orally and in sign language, who among them raped her. According
to
appellant, the complainant first pointed to the Chief of Police. Then,
complainant pointed to the other policemen in the room. Renato Guartico
then repeated his question. This time, complainant pointed to him.
Thereafter,
Renato Guartico said, "See, he is really the molester." Upon hearing
these
words, appellant cried and answered that he does not know anything
about
the rape of his daughter. He denied ever raping complainant Renalyn.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Michael Esteban, 22
years old, single, and a resident of Amunitan, Gonzaga, Cagayan,
testified
that he and appellant Reginald Guillermo were together on October 9,
1997.
He arrived at the ricefield of Berto Julian on that day at 10:00 a.m.
to
help his parents, Marcelino and Vina Esteban, thresh palay. When he got
there, he saw appellant already fishing. Appellant and the witness know
each other since they were classmates during their first year in high
school.
Michael then joined appellant in fishing while his parents started
threshing
the palay. The witness testified that appellant left at around 6:00
p.m.
Before appellant left, however, he first helped Marcelino and Vina
Esteban
in threshing the palay. The witness allegedly did not leave the
ricefield
before 6:00 p.m. Neither did he see appellant leave the ricefield
before
the latter left for home.[13]
Joey Villegas, 28 years
old, married, and a farmer residing in Amunitan, Gonzaga, Cagayan,
testified
that he was one of the men having a drinking spree in the house of
appellant
on October 9, 1997. He knows appellant and his family since they live
in
the same barangay. The witness testified that he arrived at the house
of
Feliciano Guillermo on the day of the alleged incident at around 10:00
a.m. He was with several other companions and they had come from the
wake
of his uncle, Andres Manuel. They brought with them one bottle of gin.
They usually go to the house of Feliciano Guillermo to drink. According
to him, Feliciano Guillermo just took one shot of gin with them and
thereafter
left their group. The witness also saw Carmencita Guillermo there at
the
house since they met her in the yard when they arrived. He and the
other
men who were with him drinking left the house of the Guillermos at
around
6:00 p.mchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The witness added that
he did not see appellant in the house on the day of the alleged
incident.
He also did not see complainant Renalyn in the house of the Guillermos
on that day. In fact, he claimed that he was not acquainted with
complainant
Renalyn until the next day, or on October 10, 1997, when he and the
other
men who were at the drinking spree were invited by a barangay
councilman,
at the request of Carmencita Guartico, to appear at the police station.
At the station, a child was asked to point who among them raped her.
The
witness claimed that he later learned that this child was complainant
Renalyn.
The complainant, upon being asked that question, allegedly pointed to
him.
Then, she pointed to the Chief of Police and the other policemen
standing
in the room. Finally, she pointed to appellant Reginald Guillermo.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SPO3 Rolly M. Torres,
40 years old, married, and a policeman of Gonzaga, Cagayan, testified
that
at around 6:00 p.m., in the evening, Carmencita Guartico came and
reported
that her daughter, complainant Renalyn, was raped by a certain Joey
Villegas.
He immediately accompanied Carmencita Guartico, along with another
policeman,
to the house of the Guillermos where the alleged incident occurred.
When
they got there, they asked for Joey Villegas and the people who were
drinking
with him. They were told, however, that Joey Villegas and the other men
had already left. The witness claimed that he did not see appellant
Reginald
Guillermo around the house when they came that day.cralaw:red
The next morning, the
witness further said, he endorsed the case to another policeman,
Wilfredo
Cortez, who in turn, invited appellant, Joey Villegas, and the other
men
to appear at the police station. They also invited Carmencita Guartico
together with her daughter so that the latter may identify the person
responsible
for the alleged rape. Thus, on that day, October 10, 1997, in the
police
station, they asked complainant Renalyn who among the men present
committed
the alleged rape. Complainant Renalyn touched all the men present in
the
room, including appellant and all the policemen watching the procedure.
They again asked the same men to appear at the police station the next
day, or on October 11, 1997. The same thing happened during the second
confrontation. Complainant Renalyn was again asked who among the men
present
raped her. Again, the complainant went up to the men and touched them
one
by one, including appellant.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its decision finding
appellant guilty of rape, the court a quo heavily relied on the
testimony
of complainant Renalyn. It noted that although complainant communicated
to the court mostly in sign language, deciphered and put into words by
the court interpreter, the testimony of complainant was candid and
straightforward,
albeit a little playful. The trial court further held that appellant's
alibi that he was not at the scene of the alleged crime on that day
cannot
hold true over the positive identification of him by the complainant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this appeal on
the following assignment of errors:
I
The lower court
erred
in giving credence to the incredible and inconsistent testimony of
Renalyn
Guartico who is mentally retarded.
II
The lower court
erred
in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape considering
that
the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the perpetrator
beyond
reasonable doubt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III
The lower court
erred
in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape when the
latter's
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.[16]
The disposition of rape
cases is governed by the following guidelines:
(1) an
accusation
for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove, but more
difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove;
(2) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are
usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme
caution, and chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw
strength
from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[17]
We proceed to apply
these
principles.
Appellant's counsel
points out that the complainant Renalyn cannot be considered a credible
witness on the ground that her immaturity and mental deficiency make
her
incapable of perceiving facts for which she was being examined and
making
known her perception to others truthfully.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On several instances,
we have ruled that a mentally retarded person is not for this reason
alone
disqualified from being a witness. In People v. Munar,[18]
although the complainant therein was a 19-year old female, with a
mental
age of a 5-year old, we still held that she was a competent witness. We
therein relied on the findings of the trial court that complainant's
answers
were intelligible enough to be understood. The complainant therein
could
convey her thoughts by words and signs. Furthermore, an examining
physician
from the National Mental Hospital was presented in that case who
testified
that the mental deficiency of the witness did not prevent her from
recalling
painful experiences. In People v. Gerones,[19]
we found, upon close examination of the records, that the victim
managed
to communicate her ordeal to the court clearly and consistently. The
trial
court found the victim therein to have the mental capacity of a
ten-year
old. Hence, we declared that we were convinced that a ten-year old girl
could adequately narrate facts which show that she had been raped. The
acceptance of a mental retardate's testimony, therefore, as in the case
of other witnesses, must still depend on its nature and credibility or,
otherwise put, the quality of the person's perceptions and the manner
he
can make them known to the court.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To warrant conviction
in a case of rape, the victim's testimony must be clear and free from
contradictions
for the reason that in prosecuting offenses of this nature, conviction
or acquittal virtually depends entirely on the credibility of the
complainant's
narration since usually, only the participants can testify to this
occurrence.[21]
When the credibility of the witnesses is in issue, the trial court's
assessment
is accorded great weight for it has the unique advantage of monitoring
and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment, and conduct of
the
witnesses as they regale the trial with their testimonies.[22]
In the case at bar, however, we find cogent reason to depart from this
rule.cralaw:red
It is clear in this
case that the witness' testimony was not positive, clear, plain,
coherent,
and credible. Complainant's testimony, which consisted mostly of
gestures
and incomprehensible sounds, is as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
COURT:
That rule refers
[sic]
by defense counsel x x
x
If you follow that theory apply [sic] to the victim to testify on her
behalf,
how can we prove the case for the victim herself? So let us try and
see,
oral or sign.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ORDER
x
x x
Considering the
mental
capacity of the victim, the Court allows direct questions to be asked.
You may proceed.
ATTY. ANTONIO:
Q Do you
know
Egie?
A The witness
uttered
the word, "OH x x x"
Q Will you go down
and
touch Egie?
COURT:
Make on record
that
there are only two (2) male persons among in the group of the ladies
seated
in the bench which [sic] is wearing white T-shirt and one (1) yellow
jacket.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. ANTONIO:
Q. Will you point
to
Egie?.
COURT:
The witness went
down
from the witness stand and points to one of the two (2) male persons
wearing
yellow jacket and [who] gave his name as Reginald Guillermo alias
Regie.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. ANTONIO:
Q. What did Egie
do
to you?
A The witness
caressed
her two (2) legs saying "daya".
Q What else did
Egie
do to you, will you demonstrate?
A The witness is
pointing
to the same person she pointed at a while ago.
Q. Did Egie do
like
this to you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(Atty.
Antonio
made a sign by making sex)
INTERPRETER:
As
demonstrated
by the witness, she made a circle with her thumb and right finger and
with
her forefinger inserted to that circle and made [a] push and pull
motion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. ANTONIO:
Q. Did Egie make
like
this to you?
(We go on
record
that counsel placed his forefinger at his neck like a slashing motion)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. Witness nodded
her
head and made at the same time at her neck a slashing motion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Did Egie make a
like
this to you?
(Counsel made his
forefinger on his lips as if to keep silent)
A. Witness nodded
signifying
her answer "yes".
Q. Did Egie hold
your
hands like this?
(Counsel made
a demonstration as if her hands placed at his back in a cross position)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. Witness nodded
her
head signifying her answer "yes".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. When Egie did
this
to you, did you say "a manong"? (Counsel made a push and pull
motion)
A. Witness
demonstrated
by imitating the motion making her thumb by inserting the finger making
a push and pull motion [and] witness answered by nodding her head.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. ANTONIO:
No further
questions,
your Honor. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x.[23]
Clearly, the details of
how the rape was committed were supplied by the prosecution counsel in
the form of questions propounded to the complainant. In response,
complainant
simply nodded her head and imitated the prosecution counsel's gestures.
However, upon cross-examination, it was shown that complainant answered
all questions asked to her by either nodding her head, uttering "oh,"
or
imitating the other persons gestures. At one point during the
cross-examination,
the defense counsel asked complainant if she knew what was candy and
whether
she liked it or not. The complainant simply nodded her head. Then,
defense
counsel held up a pen and asked if what he was holding was candy. The
complainant
again. nodded her head. Later, defense counsel pointed to the public
prosecutor
who was seated in the courtroom and asked complainant if that was her
father.
In response, complainant uttered "oh" and again nodded her head.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complainant's testimony
upon cross-examination is as follows:
COURT:
Cross-examination?
ATTY. PASCUAL:
With leave
of
Court:
COURT:
Proceed.
ATTY. PASCUAL:
Q. Do you know
what
this is? (Counsel showed the witness a ballpen)
A. Witness
answered
by nodding her head, no.
Q. Is this candy?
A. Witness
answered
by nodding her head.
Q. Egie used his
left
thumb and inserted the same to your fingers? (Counsel demonstrating
to witness that his left thumb inserted to the fingers of the victim)
A. The witness
answered
the question by nodding.
Q. He did not use
his
penis but his fingers, is that correct?
ATTY. ANTONIO:
Your Honor, I
believe
the mental capacity of witness should be [understood] and I think she
cannot
understand the question.
ATTY. PASCUAL:
The witness is
presented
to x x x
COURT:
Ask another
question.
ATTY. PASCUAL:
Q. Do you know
what
is a penis?
A. The witness
answered
the question by placing her forefinger vertical her nose.
Q. Do you know an
ant?
A. Yes, sir.
Witness
answer by nodding.
Q. An ant is a big
as
this (referring to the forefinger).
A. The witness
imitated
the defense counsel by raising her forefinger.
Q. If an ant would
bite
you, will you say aray?
A. Witness
answered
by nodding.
Q. When Egie put
your
hands at your back, did you say "aray"?
A. Witness
answered
by nodding and she imitated by placing her right leg and upper right
leg
and upper right arm on the chin and touch one after the other.
Q. Egie only held
your
legs, am I right?
A. The witness
touched
her legs one after the other.
Q. He did not
insert
his [penis] into your vagina?
A. Witness did not
answer
the question.
Q. Do you know
what
a [penis] looks like?
A. The witness
answer[ed]
the question propounded by defense counsel by placing her forefinger
vertical
her nose.
Q. Do you know
what
is a vagina?
A. Witness pointed
with
her finger the location of her vagina.
Q. Egie inserted
his
fingers into your vagina?
A. Witness
answered
the question by placing her forefinger vertical her nose.
Q. Is he your
father? (Counsel
pointing to Fiscal Cortes)
A. Witness
answered
by nodding her head.
Q. And he is Egie (Counsel
is referring to Atty. Frederick Aquino).
A. The witness
uttered
the words "OH" and placed her forefinger again vertically to her nose.
ATTY. PASCUAL:
I believe
that
will be all for the witness, your Honor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to the
second
issue, we agree with the defense that the prosecution failed to
establish
the identity of the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt. We have
previously
held that there is no law stating that a police line-up is essential to
proper identification.[25]
What is important is the positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime by the witness in open court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, in the case
at bar, the complainant was not able positively to identify appellant
in
her testimony as the person who committed the crime against her. The
question
asked by the prosecution was if she knew "Egie," appellant. Appellant
Guillermo
and the complainant have been neighbors for a long time, their houses
several
meters apart from each other. In answer to the prosecutions question,
complainant
naturally nodded her head and even went down the witness stand to touch
appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In People v. Rondina,[26]
the complainant, a mentally-retarded woman, pointed to her attackers no
less than four times.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First, the complainant
therein identified the said men at the police station; second, during
the
preliminary investigation conducted by the municipal judge; third,
during
the reinvestigation conducted by the provincial fiscal; and fourth, at
the trial itself, while clearing a third person she was also asked to
identify.
Moreover, in the case therein, another prosecution witness testified
that
on that fateful evening, he passed by complainant who was with three
men,
two of whom were later identified by the complainant as her attackers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although appellant presents
a weak defense in this case, denial and alibi, the fact remains that no
positive and proper identification has been made by the prosecution
witnesses.
The prosecution has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the
accused.[27]
Conviction should always rest on the strength of the prosecution's
evidence,
never on the weakness of that of the defense.[28]
We find that the evidence presented by the prosecution herein is not
sufficient
to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 8, is
hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Reginald M. Guillermo is hereby
ACQUITTED
on the ground of reasonable doubt, and his IMMEDIATE RELEASE from
prison
is hereby ORDERED, unless he is otherwise detained for any other lawful
or valid cause.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban,
Ynares-Santiago and Carpio, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 18–32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., p. 32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 8. The Information was signed by 1st Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor
Romeo B. Saquing.
[4]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Accused was assisted by Atty. Romeo S. Garcia.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
See Order dated August 5, 1998; records, Vol. I, p. 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, September 8, 1998, pp. 11–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Exhibit A-2; Records, p. 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, March 18, 1999, pp. 5–47; TSN, April 20, 1999, pp. 3–24.
[10]
TSN, January 26, 2000, pp. 4–14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, March 7, 2000, pp. 2–27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, March 7, 2000, pp. 28–39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
TSN, April 12, 2000, pp. 23–39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, July 24, 2000, pp. 2–25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, November 22, 2000, pp. 2–12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Appellant's Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People v. Aguinaldo, 316 SCRA 819, 829 (1999).
[18]
131 SCRA 44, 46 (1984).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
193 SCRA 263, 267 (1991).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People v. Salomon, 229 SCRA 403, 409 (1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People v. Castillon, 217 SCRA 76 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People v. Madronio, G.R. Nos. 137587 & 138329, July 29, 2003 citing
People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 142577, December 27, 2002.
[23]
TSN, January 26, 2000, pp. 7–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
TSN, January 26, 2000, pp. 11–14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
People v. Lubong, 332 SCRA 672, 682 (2000) citing People v. Salguero,
198
SCRA 357 (1991).
[26]
149 SCRA 128, 137 (1987).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Mansueto, 336 SCRA 715, 724 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. Ratunil, 334 SCRA 721, 723 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |