Case Digest (G.R. No. 101208)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Henry Tomentos y Rubio, G.R. No. 101208, July 03, 1992, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.The appellant, Henry Tomentos y Rubio (accused), was charged by complaint dated September 11, 1989 with raping Salvacion Cabahug (victim) in March 1989 at Tampocon I, Ayungon, Negros Oriental, contrary to paragraph 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment on October 27, 1989 the accused pleaded not guilty. Trial began in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dumaguete City, initially presided over by Branch 30; after the presiding judge inhibited himself the case was reraffled to Branch 43, Hon. Daniel B. Bernaldez, which rendered the decision appealed from.
At trial the prosecution presented ten witnesses, including medical experts (Dr. Angel V. Somera and Dr. Julio L. Abella), relatives of the victim, police officers and an interpreter, and the victim herself. The evidence established that the accused was a town bully with numerous pending and settled criminal cases, that the victim was about 21 years old but mentally retarded (described as having the mind of an 8–10 year old and an IQ estimated at 55–69%), and that on the night in question the victim left a house to urinate in a banana grove, where the accused followed, threatened her with a long kitchen knife, forced her to lie down, removed her undergarment and had sexual intercourse with her by force and intimidation, warning her not to tell anyone. The rape was alleged to have been repeated and resulted in the victim’s pregnancy; a midwife informed the victim’s aunt that the victim was about five to six months pregnant, and on or about October 30–31, 1989 the victim delivered a baby girl (later referenced as Mary Joy in the sentence).
The victim’s identification of the accused occurred in part by her checking a list of names (when she could not or would not verbalize) and later by pointing at the accused inside the court session hall after the baby was born. The accused denied the charge, proposed alternative suspects (three neighborhood boys), and contended that the meeting organized by his daughter and relatives was an attempt to extort money. The tr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in permitting leading questions to be asked of the victim during direct examination?
- Was the mentally retarded victim competent to testify and was her identification of the accused voluntary and admissible?
- Did the prosecution prove the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt, including proof of paternity and causation from pregnancy and childbirth?
- Were the discrepancies between the victim’s affidavit and trial testimony material so as to vitiate...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)