Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Uprcme Qtourt: 3republic of Tbe Bihppines
Uprcme Qtourt: 3republic of Tbe Bihppines
~uprcme Qtourt
ftf[anHa
FIRST DIVISION
DEC O2 2020
x---------------------------------------------,-
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J.:
The Facts
An Information was filed against Ansano for the rape of minor AAA, 5
which read:
1
See Notice of Appeal dat~d March 10. 2017; rollo, pp. 111-112.
2
Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with ~ssociate Justices Ramon
A. Cruz and Henri Jean Paul B. lnting (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
3
CA rollo, pp. 12-15, Penned by Pairing Judge Cynthia R. Marifio-Ricablanca.
4
The names of the City and the·Province are replaced with fictitious initials pursuant to SC Adm. Cir. No.
83-15 dated July 27, 2015.
The name of the victim i.<:: replaced with fictitious initials pursuant to SC Adm. Cir. No. 83-15 dated July
27, 2015.
---- .•. -·-·····- --·---· -- ··--·----··-·--·-··--------.--- ____ ,!I ____ _
.. •
CONTRARY TO LA W. 6
She came to know the name and identity of the accused on March
19, 2006 at 8:00 o'clock in the evening, when she saw him in their house
6
CA rollo, p. I 1.
7
The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish
or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not
be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with
People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 (2006]) and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated
September 5, 2017
Decision 3 G.R. No. 232455
having a drinking spree with her father. She was able to recognize him
("namurnukhaan"); ·he has a scar and "butil-butil" on his face; he has a
moustache and "medyo singkit". She came to know his name for the first
time when she went to the XXX Municipal Hall, where accused was
detained because of the case filed by BBB. She was shown a picture of the
accused, which she examined clearly, and she was sure that he was the one
who raped her.
Because she was raped, she went to [ZZZ] Provincial Hospital for a
medical examination. At the time of the incident on April 6, 2005, she was
[just] thirteen (13) years old. She presented her Certificate of Baptism
issued by Santo Cristo of Bulacan, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, showing that
she was born on September 14, 1991 and baptized on September'25, 1991.
She does not have a Certificate of Live Birth, as her birth was not registered
because the midwife who attended to the delivery of her mother went
abroad.
xxxx
On the other hand, the accused relied on denial and alibi to establish his
innocence. The version of the defense was summarized by the RTC, again as
affirmed by the CA, as follows:
Id. at 3-5.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 232455
After trial on the merits, in its Decision 10 dated November 16, 2015, the
RTC convicted Ansano of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the
said Decision reads:
SO ORDERED. 11
Ruling of the CA
9
Id. at 5-6.
10
Supra note 3.
11
CA rollo, pp. 14-15.
12
Supra note 1.
13
Supra note 2.
Decision 5 'G.R. No. 232455
SO ORDERED. 14
Finally, the CA also ruled that Ansano's alibi cannot be given probative
value, as AAA's positive identification, which was clear and credible, has
destroyed Ansano's alibi which, in tum, was unsupported by·evidence. The
CA thus affirmed Ansano' s conviction.
Issue
Proceeding from the foregoing, for resolution of this Court is the issue
of whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting the accused-appellant.
14
Rollo, p. 15.
15
Id. at 11.
16
Id. at 14 ..
Decision 6 G.R. No. 232455
At the outset, it bears emphasis that "the Court, in the course of its
review of criminal cases elevated to it, still commences its analysis from the
fundamental principle that the accused before it is presumed innocent." 17 This
presumption continues although the accused had been convicted in the trial
court, as long as such conviction is still pending appeal. As the Court
explained in Polangcos v. People: 18
Corollary to such principle, the Court has also laid down the following
guidelines in its review of rape cases:
(a) an accusation ofrape can be made with facility and while the
accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to disprove the charge; 20
17
Polangcos v. People, G.R. No. 239866, September 11, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.
ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65740>.
1s Id.
19 Id.
20
People v. Sta. Ana, 353 Phil. 388, 402 (1998).
Decision 7 G.R. No. 232455
(b) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are
usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the
complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; 21 and
(c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the evidence for the defense. 22
From these principles, and based on its own careful review of the
records of the case, the Court rules that a reasonable doubt exists as to
Ansano's culpability. While the Court does not doubt AAA's claim that she
had been raped, the Court does not, however, have moral certainty that it was
Ansano who committed the dastardly act.
The Court has always been mindful that "[t]he greatest care should be
taken in considering the identification of the accused, especially when this
identification is made by a sole witness and the judgment in the case totally
depends on the reliability of the identification. " 24 This stems from the
recognition that testimonial evidence, unlike other forensic evidence such as
fingerprint and DNA testing which are real or object evidence, are subject to
human errors which may be intentional or unintentional. In People v. Nunei1 5
(Nunez), the Court elucidated:
21 Id.
22 Id.
23
People v. Tumambing, 659 Phil. 544,547 (2011).
24
People v. Rodrigo, 586 Phil. 515, 528 (2008).
25
819 Phil. 406 (2017).
Decision· 8 G.R. No. 232455
xxxx
26
Id. at 415-417.
27
People v. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128, 179 (1995), citing LAFAVE AND ISRAEL, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
HORNBOOK SERIES 353 (1992 Ed.).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 232455
uncertain that it was indeed the accused who committed the crime. A week or
more later, the same eyewitness was shown another line-up of five men. Only
the accused was present in both the first and second line-ups. After having
been shown the second line-up, the eyewitness became "sure" that the accused
was the perpetrator. Applying the totality of circumstances test and the
standard of "likelihood of irreparable misidentification," the SCOTUS set
aside the out-of-court identification of the accused for having violated the
latter's right to due process. The SCOTUS explained:
This was the context of the totality ofcircumstances test adopted by the
Court in Teehankee. Years after Teehankee, the Court would adopt additional
guidelines for police officers, and safeguards for the accused, in the conduct
35
Id. at 442-443.
36
Manson v. Braithwaite, supra note 30 at 114.
37 Id.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 232455
The Court in Pineda applied the totality ofcircumstances test, but also added
that the following factors may be considered in determining the reliability of
the out-of-court identification:
(6) before trial, the witness sees the accused but fails to
identify him;
38
439 Phil. 509 (2002).
39
Id. at 524-525.
40
473 Phil. 517 (2004).
41
Id. at 540.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 232455
From the foregoing jurisprudential tests and guidelines, the Court finds
in this case that the out-of-court identification by AAA failed to pass the test
of reliability to establish the identity of the accused as the perpetrator beyond
reasonable doubt.
(a) The first two factors: opportunity to view, and degree of attention.
In the present case, the Court recognizes that the witness had a good
opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, given that they
spent considerable time together during the commission of the crime. The
witness also said that the crime happened around 5 :00 in the afternoon, thus
the lighting conditions were well enough for her to see the face of her
assailant. As well, it could be said that AAA had a high degree of attention,
especially on the identity of her assailant, during this time as they were the
only people in the crime scene.
42
Id. at 547-548.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 232455
AAA's description of her attacker was general and related mostly to,
not her assailant's physical features, but what he was wearing at the time of
the crime. In her direct testimony, the only descriptions that she gave were
that: "[hJe is taller than I am,· he was carrying a bolo; he was wearing a long-
sleeved shirt; he was wearing long pants he used in the farm, sir. " 43 These
were her only descriptions of her assailant as she was narrating the rape
incident. The description that her assailant had a scar on his face and that it
had "butil-butil" came after, when she saw Ansano on March 19, 2006.
Q Can you please tell to the Honorable Corni, how were you able to
come to know the name and identity of the accused?
A I was able to recognized (sic) his face at the time of the incident on
March 19, 2006 at 8 o'clock in the evening. I saw him in our house
having a drinking spree with my father, sir.
Q And while the accused was having a drinking spree with your father
at that night, where were you at that time?
A I was in our house, playing with my cousins, sir.
Q How far were you to the place of your father and the accused were
there (sic) having a drinking spree?
A Our house is near the road and my father and the accused having a
drinking spree beside the road, sir.
Q Why?
A Because I was able to recognized (sic) his face, sir.
Q Now, you said that you were able to recall that the accused was the
one who abuse[ d] you because of his face, what are those identifying
[marks] to his face?
43
TSN dated April 23, 2007, p. 5.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 232455
COURT Verified.
[t]he Court has, time and again, declared that if the inculpatory facts
and circumstances are capable of two or more interpretations, one of which
being consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other or others
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence in view of the constitutional
presumption of innocence has not fulfilled the test of moral certainty and is
thus insufficient to support a conviction. 47
In other words, doubts - no matter how slight, as long as they are reasonable
- created in the identity of the perpetrator of the crime, should be resolved
in favor of the accused. 48
(c) The length of time between the crime and the identification
44
TSN dated June 25, 2008, pp. 13-15.
45
TSN dated February IO, 2010, p. 3.
46 Id.
47
Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 50 (2016).
48
Peoplev. Vargas, 784Phil.144, 156(2016).
Decision 15 G.R. No. 232455
In the present case, AAA was raped in April 2005. She supposedly saw
her assailant again in March 2006, and was finally able to definitively point
to Ansano as her assailant in May 2006. There was thus, more or less, one
year between the time the crime was committed to the time of the
identification.
(d) The last two factors: the level of certainty demonstrated by the
witness at the identification, and the suggestiveness of the
identification procedure.
The Court notes that AAA did not show a high level of certainty in her
initial identification of Ansano. For instance, in her testimony quoted above,
she used the word "namumukhaan" instead of "nakilala" when she saw
Ansano on March 19, 2006. More glaring, however, was that she needed a
second look for her to be able to ascertain that Ansano was her assailant -
this time, through a photograph while Ansano was detained for another
charge. AAA testified as follows:
Q Now, Madam Witness, you stated that, that was the time on March
19, 2006 were able to identify the face of the accused, the one who
raped you that afternoon of April 6, 2005, when for the first time did
you come to know his name?
A When I went to the Municipal Hall, sir.
Q What office?
A In the office of the police, sir.
49
People v. Nunez, supra note 25 at 428.
50
Supra note 24.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 232455
A I was then asking if the accused was still at the Municipal Jail
because he was then detained because of the case filed by [BBB], 51
Slf.
This is so because:
xxxx
51
Supra note 7.
52
TSN dated June 25, 2008, p. 16.
53
People v. Pineda, supra note 40.
54
Id. at 540, citing PATRICK M. WALL, EYE-WITNESS IDENTIFICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES 68-69 (1965 .
Decision 17 G.R. No. 232455
eyewitness was shown only one photo before making the identification. In
finding this out-of-court identification unreliable, the Court explained:
Q You mean to say that, through [BBB], you came to know that the
accused is from [GGG, XXX, ZZZ]?
A Yes, sir.
xxxx
Q And you were able to see him face to face through [BBB]?
A No, sir, he had a drinking spree with my father.
55
People v. Rodrigo, supra note 24 at 529-530.
Decision 18 G.R. No. 232455
Q What time more or less was that, when you were able to meet face
to face the accused?
A More or less 8 o'clock in the evening, sir.
Q In what particular place, you were (sic) then with [BBB] on that
date?
A In our house, sir.
Q You want you (sic) tell the court that, on that day, March 19, 2006
that was the very first time that you came face to face [with] the
accused?
A Yes, sir. 56
It·is important to note that the records reflect that the present charge
was once consolidated with a case filed by BBB against Ansano, but BBB
eventually decided to not pursue the case and this case thus proceeded on its
own. While the records do not reflect the exact nature of the case filed by
BBB, it could reasonably be inferred that it was likewise a rape or sexual
assault charge for it to have been initially consolidated with this case.
56
TSN dated December 10, 2008, pp. 5-7.
57
People v. Parungao, 332 Phil. 917, 924 (1996).
ss Id.
Decision 19 G.R. No. 232455
- to reiterate, not on the fact that the crime happened, but rather - on the
identity of the accused. Acquittal must perforce follow.
The Court laments that neither the R TC nor the CA was able to discuss
the doubt on Ansano's identity as the perpetrator of the crime even though the
issue was glaring in the records of the case. Both the RTC and the CA focused
on whether the crime indeed happened and examined AAA's testimony only
through that lens. The RTC simply said that "[t]he clear, consistent and
spontaneous testimony of [AAA] unrelentingly established how Ansano
sexually [assaulted] her on April 6, 2005 with the use of force, threat and
intimidation." 59 The CA was unfortunately as terse, as it held that: "AAA
positively identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator. The clear,
consistent and spontaneous testimony of AAA established that accused-
appellant committed rape against the victim," 60 adding that Ansano's defense
of alibi and denial simply failed to stand in light of AAA's positive
identification. 61
The Court thus takes this opportunity to remind courts that "[a]
conviction for a crime rests on two bases: (I) credible and convincing
testimony establishing the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the
crime; and (2) the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt that all
elements of the crime are attributable to the accused." 62 "Proving the
identity of the accused as the malefactor is the prosecution's primary
responsibility. Thus, in every criminal prosecution, the identity of the
offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof bey~md reasonable
doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to
prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime
can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of
the criminal beyond reasonable doubt." 63
Also, while the defenses of denial and alibi are inherently weak, they
are only so in the face of an effective identification64 which, as discussed, was
not present in this case.
Lastly, while it was true, as the CA noted, that "no young woman,
especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts, and thereafter testify about her ordeal in a
public trial if she had not been impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to
her," 65 this does not mean that the said testimony should be accepted
wholesale. It bears stressing that:
59
CA rollo p. 14.
60
Rollo, p. 11.
61
Id. at 13.
62
People v. Pineda, supra note 40 at 537.
63
Peoplev. Espera, 718 Phil. 680,694 (2013).
64
See People v. Pineda, supra note 40 at 548.
65
Rollo, p. 11.
Decision 20 G.R. No. 232455
As a final note, the Court ends with the following discussion in People
v. Fernandez: 67
The Court has aptly said: "It is better to liberate a guilty man than to
unjustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the required
quantum of evidence. Hence, despite the Court's support of ardent crusaders
waging all-out war against felons on the loose, when the People's evidence
fails to prove indubitably the accused's authorship of the crime of which
they stand accused, it is the Court's duty - and the accused's right - to
proclaim their innocence. Acquittal, therefore, is in order. 68
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
OSDADO . PERALTA
Chief J~stice
Chairpehon
Associate Justice
SAMUEC~
--=Associate
~EN
Justice
CERTIFICATION