Title
People vs. Estibal y Calungsag
Case
G.R. No. 208749
Decision Date
Nov 26, 2014
A father accused of raping his 13-year-old daughter was acquitted due to insufficient evidence, as the prosecution relied on inadmissible hearsay and lacked the victim’s testimony.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208749)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural History
    • The People of the Philippines charged Anecito Estibal y Calungsag with rape under Article 266-A(2), in relation to Article 266-B(5)(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 and R.A. No. 8369.
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, Pasig City (stationed in Taguig City), convicted him by decision dated November 24, 2011. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed on March 25, 2013. The case is before the Supreme Court on automatic review.
  • Evidence at Trial
    • Information alleged that on February 5, 2009, accused used force, violence, intimidation and moral ascendancy to have sexual intercourse with his 13-year-old daughter (AAA) against her will, qualifying the crime by relationship, minority, abuse of dwelling and superior strength.
    • Prosecution witnesses (testimonies stipulated):
      • Dr. Jesille Baluyot (medico-legal examiner) – initial report showed healed anogenital lacerations diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma to the hymen.
      • BSF Michael Estudillo & BSF Ronillo Perlas (Barangay Security Force) – arrested the accused without warrant after AAA and her mother (BBB) reported the abuse.
      • PO3 Fretzie S. Cobardo (PNP Women and Children Protection Center) – took AAA’s sworn statement late evening of February 5, 2009; testified AAA was crying, uncoached, and spontaneously narrated repeated abuse since Grade III.
    • Accused’s defense was general denial and alibi: he claimed he was asleep with his children between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m., and that others influenced AAA to file the complaint.
    • AAA and BBB failed to appear at trial despite subpoenas; AAA had moved to an unknown address.

Issues:

  • Whether AAA’s out-of-court statements to barangay tanods and to PO3 Cobardo are admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.
  • Whether, in the absence of the complainant’s in-court testimony and relying on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.