Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G.R. No. 232455, December 02, 2020
G.R. No. 232455, December 02, 2020
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J.:
The Facts
have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], a minor who at the time was
only fifteen (15) years of age, against her will and consent, the act
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
resident of XXX. She testified that she filed this case of rape
identified in open court. She stated that she did not know him at
first, but when she went to the Municipal Building, she came to
know him because of his niece who is her friend. On April 6, 2005,
at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, she was going to fetch her
father at Narra, where he was then selling goods at the river. This
was at [GGG] near the river. Accused Ansano was then carrying a
7
bolo, wearing a long-sleeved shirt and long pants used in the farm;
while she was wearing red t-shirt and school uniform skirt. Ansano
poked his bolo at her and told her to go with him to the falls near
the Narra tree. Because she was afraid and he threatened to kill
her if she does not go with him, she went along. When they were
nearing the falls, he turned the other way. He held her tightly by
and coconuts and told her to sit down and not to shout, still poking
the bolo at her. He then removed his clothes, undressed her, laid
her down, kissed her neck and placed his penis into her mouth.
She cried very hard and vomited at that time. Thereafter, accused
inserted his penis into her vagina. It was painful. Accused rested
for a while, and then did it again. Thereafter, accused put on his
clothes and directed her to remain lying down until he left the
place. He also told her not to tell anyone about the incident
because he knew her and her parents, he knew what time she
went to church, what time she went to bed and that she was
always with her cousin. He then left and proceeded to the direction
going to Narra. After he left, she put on her clothes and went
home. She proceeded to bed and cried. Her mother asked her why
she was crying and she told her that she was raped. She could
hardly speak because she was still crying. Her father went to the
place of the incident but the person who abused her was no longer
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 having a drinking spree with her father. She was able to
know his name for the first time when she went to the XXX
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
she was [just] thirteen (13) years old. She presented her Certificate
Manila, showing that she was born on September 14, 1991 and
of Live Birth, as her birth was not registered because the midwife
XXX, since the year 2005, and that she had not known the
him through BBB who was then living in their house, when
accused had a drinking spree with her father on March 19, 2006.
xxxx
Hospital. She was the one who physically examined AAA and her
there and left at around 5:00 o'clock. They went home going their
at around 6:00 o'clock. On his way home to XXX, he did not meet
AAA, nor did he poke a bolo on her neck and rape her.
her father CCC; that he came to know in court that their house is
more or less one kilometer away from his house; that on April 6,
2005, he and his friends Rudy, Albert and Nick left at around 5:00
kilometer away from his house; that upon reaching his house, he
SO ORDERED. 11
reasonable doubt.
Ruling of the CA
SO ORDERED. 14
the CA explained:
from having to see the accused-appellant again for the first time on
March 19, 2006 after the rape incident that occurred on April 6,
2005.
Accused-appellant's claim of the absence of scar on his face may
rapist. 16
conviction.
Issue
accused-appellant.
in Polangcos v. People: 18
secure a conviction:
Second, the prosecution's case must rise and fall on its own merits
Corollary to such principle, the Court has also laid down the
(a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the
(c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
From these principles, and based on its own careful review of the
records of the case, the Court rules that a reasonable doubt exists
claim that she had been raped, the Court does not, however, have
act.
the crime and his actual commission of the same. An ample proof
convictions."
xxxx
The bifurcated difficulty of misplaced reliance on eyewitness
Brathwaite (Brathwaite):
30
face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug
fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with
opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the
time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the
supplied)
suggestive ones are condemned for the further reason that the
a line-up of three men, with the accused being almost six feet in
height while the other two men in the line-up were just 5'5" and
accused. Even with this, the eyewitness was still uncertain that it
more later, the same eyewitness was shown another line-up of five
men. Only the accused was present in both the first and second
police, petitioner stood out from the other two men by the contrast
of his height and by the fact that he was wearing a leather jacket
in Stovall that
widely condemned."
Petitioner was the only person in this lineup who had also
was, in fact, "the man." In effect, the police repeatedly said to the
itself." 37
that:
[t]he first rule in proper photographic identification procedure is
the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness is shown
(1) the witness originally stated that he could not identify anyone;
(2) the identifying witness knew the accused before the crime, but
(6) before trial, the witness sees the accused but fails to identify
him;
(7) before the commission of the crime, the witness had limited
(8) the witness and the person identified are of different racial
groups;
at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that
time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
(4) the length of time between the crime and the identification; (5)
procedure.
attention.
and whether the eyewitness was put on alert that he or she must
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
identity of her assailant, during this time as they were the only
to, not her assailant's physical features, but what he was wearing
descriptions that she gave were that: "[h]e is taller than I am; he
wearing long pants he used in the farm, sir." These were her only
43
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
Q Can you please tell to the Honorable Court, how were you able
A I was able to recognized (sic) his face at the time of the incident
Q And while the accused was having a drinking spree with your
Q How far were you to the place of your father and the accused
A Our house is near the road and my father and the accused
Q Why?
"namumukhaan"
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
sir. 44
COURT Verified.
have been gone since it had been four years between AAA's
identification and the time the accused took the witness
stand. However,
46
[t]he Court has, time and again, declared that if the inculpatory
of the accused and the other or others consistent with his guilt,
innocence has not fulfilled the test of moral certainty and is thus
(c) The length of lime between the crime and the identification
the length of time between the crime and the identification made
incident. 49
In the present case, AAA was raped in April 2005. She supposedly
saw her assailant again in March 2006, and was finally able to
was thus, more or less, one year between the time the crime was
identification was one of the factors that led the Court to hold that
(d) The last two factors: the level of certainty demonstrated by the
identification procedure.
The Court notes that AAA did not show a high level of certainty in
"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
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
Q What office?
[BBB], sir.
51
improper suggestion.
the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness is shown
identified may say, "That's the man that did it," what he may
xxxx
photograph. 54
the due process rights of the accused as it may deny him his rights
at least actively prepared her mind to, the thought that Rodrigo
in this case. That she was shown only one photograph, when
ℒαwρhi ৷
with her father. She, however, only knew of his name two months
after, or on March 19, 2006, when she went to the municipal hall to
inquire if Ansano was still detained for the case filed by her best
friend, BBB, who was also Ansano's niece. Incidentally, BBB was
XXX, ZZZ]?
Q You mean to say that, through [BBB], you came to know that the
xxxx
Q And you were able to see him face to face through [BBB]?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q What time more or less was that, when you were able to meet
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q In what particular place, you were (sic) then with [BBB] on that
date?
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
Ansano, but BBB eventually decided to not pursue the case and
this case thus proceeded on its own. While the records do not
BBB on the identification — did not arise from State action; thus,
does not, however, preclude the courts from taking the said finding
on the fact that the crime happened, but rather — on the identity of
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
The RTC simply said that "[t]he clear, consistent and spontaneous
[assaulted] her on April 6, 2005 with the use of force, threat and
The Court thus takes this opportunity to remind courts that "[a]
doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the
reasonable doubt." 63
Also, while the defenses of denial and alibi are inherently weak,
Lastly, while it was true, as the CA noted, that "no young woman,
about her ordeal in a public trial if she had not been impelled to
seek justice for the wrong done to her," this does not mean that
65
stressing that:
motivation. 66
in People v. Fernandez: 67
defense of alibi and denial can be given full faith and credence.
We only stress that her testimony was unable to pass the exacting
test of moral certainty that the law demands and the rules require
presumption of innocence.
issues raised.
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
issued immediately.
(5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED.
JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1
See Notice of Appeal dated March 10, 2017; rollo, pp. 111-112.
2
Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-
3
CA rollo, pp. 12-15. Penned by Pairing Judge Cynthia R. Marino-
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.
5
The name of the victim is replaced with fictitious initials pursuant
6
CA rollo, p. 11.
7
The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and
8
Id. at 3-5.
9
Id. at 5-6.
10
Supra note 3.
11
CA rollo, pp. 14-15.
12
Supra note 1.
13
Supra note 2.
14
Rollo, p.15.
15
Id. at 11.
16
Id. at 14.
17
Polangcos v. People, G.R. No. 239866, September 11, 2019,
accessed at .
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
People v. Sta. Ana, 353 Phil. 388, 402 (1998).
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).
26
Id. at 415-417.
27
People v. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128, 179 (1995), citing
28
Id.
29
409 U.S. 188 (1972)
30
432 U.S. 98 (1977)
31
People v. Teehankee, Jr., supra note 27 at 180.
32
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968).
33
Neil v. Biggers, supra note 29 at 198.
34
394 U.S. 440 (1969).
35
Id. at 442-443.
36
Manson v. Braithwaite, supra note 30 at 114.
37
Id.
38
439 Phil. 509 (2002).
39
Id. at 524-525.
40
473 Phil. 517 (2004).
41
Id. at 540.
42
Id. at 547-548.
43
TSN dated April 23, 2007, p. 5.
44
TSN dated June 25, 2008, pp. 13-15.
45
TSN dated February 10, 2010, p. 3.
46
Id.
47
Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 50 (2016).
48
People v. Vargas, 784 Phil. 144, 156 (2016).
49
People v. Nuñez, supra note 25 at 428.
50
Supra note 24.
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
55
People v. Rodrigo, supra note 24 at 529-530.
56
TSN dated December 10, 2008, pp. 5-7.
57
People v. Parungao, 332 Phil. 917, 924 (1996).
58
Id.
59
CA rollo, p. 14.
60
Rollo, p. 11.
61
Id. at 13.
62
People v. Pineda, supra note 40 at 537.
63
People v. Espera, 718 Phil. 680, 694 (2013).
64
See People v. Pineda, supra note 40 at 548.
65
Rollo, p. 11.
66
People v. Rodrigo, supra note 24 at 539.
67
434 Phil. 435 (2002).
68
Id. at 455.