socorro lim digest

Case No. 1
G.R. No. 124737 June 26, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
vs.
RIZALINO FUNDANO, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

            In this case the accused-appellant RizalinoFundano seeks to reverse the 1996 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape. Rizalino was charged with this crime that he had committed towards Melody Fundano, his 15-year old daughter with his common-law wife Maria Fundano.

            It was alleged in the complaints filed by Melody and her mother that she was first raped by Rizalino on the night of September 10, 1993. Melody was again raped by Rizalino on the next two succeeding nights. However, Melody was only able to reveal about her ordeal on October 26, 1993 because she was afraid and ashamed of what had happened.On November 11, 1993, Melody, accompanied by her mother Maria and her sister-in-law Lucita, went to the NBI and accomplished a complaint sheet, executed a sworn statement, and submitted herself to a medical examination.

            Dr. Rolando Victoria, who examined Melody, found no extra-genital physical injuries norhymenal lacerations, and while her hymen was intact, it admitted a 2.8-centimeter diameter tube without producing any injury. Dr. Victoria thus concluded that MELODY's hymenal orifice could admit an adult male organ in full erection without suffering injury, and that it was possible she engaged in sexual engaged in sexual intercourse.

            The trial court found Rizalinoquilty of rape. It gave full faith & credit to Melody's testimony who declared in court, "in a straight forward and categorical manner," and exhibited no ulterior motive which "could have removed the sense of modesty and shame in a 15-year old girl and impelled her to concoct a story that would certainly bring ignominy, dishonor and humiliation to her and her family." Also, the trial court found unworthy the credence of Rizalino’sdefense of alibi, which was belied by the witnesses for the prosecution.

ISSUES:

1.            Whether or not the victim Melody is a credible witness given that the accused alleged that she has an ill motive in blaming her father for the crime.

2.            Whether or not the defendant Rizalino may question the expertise and credibility of Dr. Rolando Victorio as an expert witness in the case.

3.            Whether or not the Trial Court erred in disregarding the surrebuttal testimony of the defense.

RULING:

1.            Yes. Critical to any rape prosecution is the complainant's credibility, for that factor alone is sufficient to convict the accused. It is to be expected then that the defense will attempt to destroy the complainant's trustworthiness. In this case, the defenselabored to ascribe ill motive to Melody in that she hated her father because he did not give her support and he cohabited with another woman. However, Rizalino failed to prove these allegations with credible evidence. Thus does a sound and time-tested judicial dictum come to fore, that where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that she was not so actuated and her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

2.            No. Rizalino, moreover, may not decry Dr. Victoria's alleged lack of expertise. Before one may be allowed to testify as an expert witness, his qualifications must first be established by the party presenting him, i.e., he must be shown to possess the special skill or knowledge relevant to the question to which he is to express an opinion.In Dr. Victoria's case, the prosecution examined his past and present employment, his experience and duties as an NBI medico-legal officer, and the lectures and seminars he attended and conducted. An expert witness may be impeached, or the weight of his opinion lessened, by introducing evidence or pointing out paradoxes in his testimony; and the cross-examination of such a witness, great latitude is allowed the examining counsel to test the credibility of the expert for the guidance of the court. In the instant case, defense counsel's lone remark was that "the prosecution has not established the qualification of" Dr. Victoria, which, by itself, did not impair the expertise already established by the prosecution. At any rate, neither the medical report nor the testimony of witnesses other than the complainant is indispensable when, as here, the complainant's testimony is credible.

3.            No. While the Trial Court made no reference to Rizalino'ssurrebuttal testimony, such did not indicate that the court a quo harbored doubts as to his guilt. On the contrary, this silence only meant that the trial court did not find the testimony credible or found nothing therein to alter the fact of his presence in Comembo on the questioned dates. More importantly, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses that the accused in this case was the perpetrator of the offenses charged. 

Case No. 2

G.R. No. 123546     July 2, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

JOERAL GALLENO, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

            JoeralGalleno was charged with statutory rape committed against Evelyn Obligar, a five year old girl. The prosecution presented three expert witnesses namely, Dr. Alfonso Orosco, Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada, and Dr.Machael Toledo, whose testimonies convinced the trial court that rape was committed against Obligar. Galleno contended that he should be acquitted since the expert testimonies were not impeccable considering that the doctors 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.

ISSUES:

            Whether or not the Trial Court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the medical doctors when the same failed to conclusively and sufficiently establish the cause of the laceration in the offended party’s vagina.

RULING:

            No. 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, or 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.

The absence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina does not negate the conclusion that it was his penis which was inserted in the victim's vagina. In rape, the important consideration is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.