A.M. No. MTJ-94-949 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Del Rosario

The city prosecutor charged Jenny Tumambing with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Criminal Case No. 04-227897.
The victim, designated as DK (a fictitious name under Republic Act 9262), testified as the complainant in the case.

On June 26, 2004, at around 2:00 a.m., DK was in her cousin’s rented room where she had gone to sleep leaving the lights on.
After the lights were turned off, an intruder entered the room.
The assailant, identified later as a man, approached DK with a knife, threatened to kill her if she made any noise, and proceeded to remove her clothes before raping her.
As the intruder was leaving, DK turned on the light and saw his face, recognizing him as the same person who had been seen passing by her cousin’s room several times during the previous day (June 25, 2004).
Subsequently, DK identified the accused Jenny Tumambing as her attacker.

On June 27, 2004, a doctor examining DK found no bruises or signs of resistance, except for several fresh lacerations on her genitals.
The accused, Jenny Tumambing, denied the charge, asserting he was at his employer Nestor Ledesma’s house from approximately 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on the night of the alleged incident.
Ledesma corroborated Tumambing’s alibi, recounting the timeline of events at the employer’s residence.

Barangay officials arranged a confrontation between DK and the suspects. During this encounter:

DK was repeatedly asked to identify the person who raped her but showed considerable hesitation.
Testimony by PO2 Crispulo Frondozo indicated that DK did not conclusively point out the accused when asked at the barangay precinct.

The Barangay Chairman, Pedrito Yacub, Sr., noted that during the confrontation at his residence, DK’s inability to clearly identify the suspect was evident.

DK did not offer any positive identification but rather appeared uncertain even after repeated prompts.
The chairman eventually relayed that DK could not definitively point to Tumambing and even entertained the possibility that another suspect, Alvin Quiatcho, could have been involved.

An executive officer of the same barangay, Crispin Dizon, confirmed that despite multiple requests for identification, DK either did not respond or hesitated when linking the suspect to the rape.

On June 27, 2006, the RTC found Tumambing guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
The RTC sentenced Tumambing to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify DK with a total of P100,000.00 (P50,000.00 as indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages).
On November 12, 2009, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in its entirety, prompting Tumambing to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The victim’s later identification of Tumambing was marked by initial reluctance and inconsistency.
DK’s demeanor during the barangay confrontation (lack of emotional response, failure to firmly identify the accused immediately, and conflicting description such as mentioning a yellow shirt) raised questions about the reliability of her testimony.
Critical observations noted that had DK been completely familiar with her attacker, her reactions would have been more spontaneous and unequivocal rather than hesitant and ambiguous.

Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in convicting Jenny Tumambing of rape based on the identification made by DK.
Whether the credibility and spontaneity of the victim’s identification of the alleged rapist were sufficient and reliable to surmount the presumption of innocence.

The case raises the question of the weight accorded to a victim’s testimony when her actions during the initial confrontation are inconsistent with her claims of familiarity with the assailant.
It also examines if the court improperly ignored or misinterpreted critical evidence regarding her uncertain identification of the accused.