Case Digest (G.R. No. 117683)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Teofilo Taneo, G.R. No. 117683, January 16, 1998, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The accused-appellant is Teofilo Taneo; the plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the offended party is Mencina Taneo.On May 23, 1994, at about 3:00 p.m., Mencina (then under 18) was at home in Sitio Bihang, Bongoyan, Borbon, Cebu with her parents and younger sisters. Her mother left for a nearby store at her husband’s insistence and left Mencina to tend an infant sister. Mencina testified that while she slept after lunch, her father, Teofilo, sent the two younger sisters away, entered her presence, pinned her with his left hand, first inserted his right finger into her vagina and thereafter his penis, threatened her with a bolo to prevent resistance or outcry, and succeeded in deflowering her. She did not immediately inform her mother but on May 24 went to an aunt and then reported the incident to a policeman; the father was arrested the same day.
Mencina was examined on May 24 by Dr. Gemma T. Macachor at Danao General Hospital; the medico-legal report noted no lacerations of the hymen, slight redness of the labia minora and a vaginal orifice admitting a forefinger, and a negative vaginal smear. Mencina executed an affidavit and complaint on May 25. At trial in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Cebu City (presided by Judge Celso M. Gimenez), Mencina testified in open court and identified her father as the assailant; the defense offered denial and alibi, supported mainly by the accused’s wife. The RTC convicted Teofilo of rape, sentenced him to death, ordered indemnity (P50,000) and exemplary damages (P25,000), and awarded costs.
Because the penalty imposed was death, the case was subject to automatic review before the Supreme Court. Appellant raised four assignments of error challenging the victim’s credibility, reliance on the medical findings, alleged shifting of the burden of proof (failu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in crediting the testimony of the private complainant as to identification, force and circumstances of the alleged rape?
- Do the medical findings by Dr. Gemma T. Macachor (no hymenal laceration; vaginal orifice admits forefinger; negative smear) negate the charge of rape?
- Did the trial court improperly shift the burden of proof to the defense by commenting on the non-production of a supposed corroborative witness and thereby render the conviction infirm?
- Was the imposition of th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)