Final Activity in Evidence

Read the case of Lejano v. People, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010 and make a case
digest out of it. A sample case digest is attached for your reference.
This activity must be written in a yellow sheet of pad paper to be submitted on 14 December
2024.

Sample Case Digest:

G.R. no. 137648, March 30, 2001

Facts: Eula Padilla, a 10 year old girl, assisted by her mother, Esmeralda D. Sarmiento, filed a
complaint charging her father, Ireneo Padilla with the crime of rape.

Eula Padilla recounted the incident as follows:

At around three o’clock in the morning of November 4, 1995, while she was sleeping in
their house at No. 44 Pag-asa Street, Signal Village, Taguig, Metro Manila, her father Ireneo
Padilla, tied both her hands and feet, covered her mouth and undressed her. The accused-
appellant then forcibly inserted his penis inside her vagina. Eula felt pain in her private part and
cried but she could not do anything because her hands and feet were tied. After the sexual act,
her father untied her and immediately left the house.

On the same day, her mother noticed bloodstains on her shorts unsure of whether her
daughter was already menstruating she was confronted by her grandmother, Eula disclosed that
she was raped by her father. Her mother brought her to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory Service (PNPCLS) in Camp Crame, Quezon City for medical examination.

Esmeralda confronted her husband and asked him if there was any truth to what her
daughter narrated. The accused-appellant replied, “Hindi daw niya alam kung bakit nagawa niya
iyon.” After taking her daughter to the Rizal Medical Center for treatment, she reported the
incident to the police.

The police headed by Police Officer I Romeo Oreta arrested the accused-appellant in his
house and brought him to the police station where he was investigated and detained. Esmeralda
voluntarily turned over her daughter to the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD).

In the medico-legal report the medico-legal officer found fresh hymenal lacerations on
her organ and concluded that his” findings are compatible with (her) recent loss of virginity.”
 In view of the admission by counsel for the accused-appellant of the due execution of the
medico-legal report prepared by Dr. Libaquin, his testimony was dispensed with.

On the other hand, accused-appellant Ireneo Padilla vehemently denied the accusation
against him. He claimed that in the evening of November 3, 1995, he was sleeping with his wife
Esmeralda and their three children, Eula, 10 years old, Joel, 7 years, and Angie, 5 in their house.
At around six o’clock of the following morning, he left their house and proceeded to the talipapa
to check on his fruit and vegetable stall as it rained the whole night due to typhoon “Rosing.” In
the early morning of November 5, 1995, he was surprised when several police officers arrested
him in their house and brought him to the Taguig Police Station. He denied having sexually
abused his daughter Eula and maintained that it is a mere fabrication instigated by his parents-in-
law who did not like him.

The trial court rendered its decision convicting accused-appellant and sentencing him as
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape charged in the Information and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of Death, and indemnify the victim Eula Padilla, the sum
of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos based on the sworn statement given by Eula Padilla before
this court.

Issue:

1. Can the accused be convicted of the crime charged despite only of the vague testimony of
the private complainant that she was raped by her father?

2. Can the court may take judicial notice of the victim's age and independent proof of
minority may not be necessary?

Ruling:

1. Yes.

The Court has repeatedly reiterated the three principles that guide its review of rape
cases, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused 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 is
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its
own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

Conviction or acquittal in a rape case more often than not depends almost entirely on the
credibility of the complainant's testimony because by the very nature of this crime, it is usually
only the victim who can testify as to its occurrence. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted
solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible,
natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. And, in
the evaluation of the credibility of the complainant's testimony, the sound determination and
conclusion by the trial court is accorded much weight and respect.
 In the case under scrutiny, we find no compelling reason to overturn the factual findings
of the trial court. The testimony of the complainant, Eula Padilla, who was only ten years old at
the time she testified, deserves full faith and credit. Her simple, positive and straightforward
recounting on the witness stand of her harrowing experience lends credence to her accusation.
Moreover, being a mere child of tender years, her age belies any allegation that her charge was a
mere concoction or fabrication impelled by some ill-motive or revenge. As has been stressed by
this Court in numerous cases, when a woman or a child victim says that she has been raped, she
in effect says all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.

Accused-appellant faults the prosecution in the way it conducted its direct examination of
the complainant. It is argued that a rape case is not prosecuted by merely referring to the sworn
statement executed by the complainant and asking her to confirm such statements; on the
contrary, all the material allegations sufficient to prove the crime complained of should be
established by the clear testimony of the complainant on the witness stand. Accused-appellant
brands as vague the portion of complainant's testimony how she was raped: "ipinasok niya ang
bird niya sa ari ko.” It is appellant's contention that such testimony does not positively establish
that the rape was committed.

The Court does not agree. To say that the word "bird" is vague is plain sophistry. A child
victim of rape could not be expected to be sophisticated and knowledgeable in the ways of sex.
What she meant by the word "bird" was no other than a male genital organ. Although the term is
not as definitive as the word "penis," a young and innocent child cannot be expected to be as
graphic and explicit in her language as an adult.

Ineluctably, the bare denial of herein accused-appellant cannot overcome the clear and
positive evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the commission of the crime charged.

Thus, this Court affirms the finding of the trial court that the accused-appellant is guilty.
beyond reasonable doubt of raping complainant Eula Padilla.

2. Yes.

In the case at bar, however, the victim was only ten years old when the rape was
committed. In such an instance, the court may take judicial notice of the victim's age and
independent proof of minority may not be necessary. In the case of People vs. Tipay, the
Court pronounced that the presentation of the certificate of birth is not at all times necessary to
prove minority and the minority of a victim of tender age who may be below the age of ten is
quite manifest and the court can take judicial notice thereof. In People vs. Bali-balita, the victim
was only ten years old when she was raped by the live-in partner of her mother. The Court held
that the victim's minority was sufficiently proven. As the victim, who was ten years and four
months old at the time of the rape, testified in court only about four months after the rape, it
would not have been difficult for the trial court to take judicial notice that she was under 18 years
of age.
 The Court's rulings in the two aforecited cases find application in the present case.
Complainant Eula was only ten years old at the time of the rape. And at the time she
testified in court, only five months had elapsed from the day of the commission of the
crime. Thus, the trial court could have easily taken judicial notice of her minority. As a
rule, even if the age of the victim is not contested, there must be independent proof of the age of
the victim, as well as the filiation between the victim and the accused. Independent proof of age
may consist of the certificate of live birth or the baptismal certificate of the victim. Should such
documents be unavailable, it must be shown that they were either lost or destroyed, and other
documents or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose may be presented.

In the present case, we find sufficient evidence of complainant's minority and her
relationship with the accused even if independent proof of minority was not presented.
Complainant declared on the witness stand that she was ten years old when she was ravished by
her father. Moreover, her testimony was corroborated by her mother who also testified that her
daughter's age at the time she was raped was ten.

Complainant Eula was only ten years old at the time of the rape. And at the time she
testified in court, only five months had elapsed from the day of the commission of the crime.
Thus, the trial court could have easily taken judicial notice of her minority.

Relationship between the victim and the accused has likewise been established.
Complainant categorically declared that the accused-appellant is her father. This was
corroborated by her mother who testified that the accused is her husband. Accused-appellant
himself, in his direct testimony admitted that complainant Eula Padilla is one of his three
children.

Thus, having proven both minority and relationship, the penalty of death was correctly
meted out by the trial court.