Title
People vs. Dizon
Case
G.R. No. 128889
Decision Date
Aug 20, 1999
Avelino Dizon was convicted of raping a six-year-old girl, Kristine Sudaria, in 1994. Medical evidence confirmed hymenal lacerations and gonorrhea. Despite his denial, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty, citing the victim's age and credible testimony.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128889)

Applicable Law

The case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly Article 335 modified by R.A. No. 7659, which pertains to the imposition of death penalty in cases of rape of minors below twelve years old.

Case Background and Prosecution’s Evidence

The prosecution presented credible evidence, including testimonies from several witnesses. These included Helen Sudaria, KRISTINE's mother, who, after noticing abnormal discharge from her daughter's underwear, took her to the hospital where doctors confirmed the presence of gonorrhea. Helen's urgent response led to the filing of a complaint with law enforcement, and KRISTINE identified DIZON as her assailant during a police line-up. Medical examinations corroborated the claim of rape, revealing lacerations in KRISTINE’s hymen and the detection of gonorrhea.

Defense and Accusation Denial

DIZON, who had a close and long-standing relationship with the victim's family as an employee, testified in his defense, asserting his innocence and denying any misconduct. He disputed the circumstances under which he was investigated and claimed he did not have the opportunity to commit the alleged crime, pointing to KRISTINE’s lack of immediate disclosure about the incident and some inconsistencies in her testimony.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court found the prosecution's witnesses credible and the testimonies sufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The court underscored that the victim's testimony alone could suffice for a rape conviction, given the presumption that a declaration by a victim of sexual assault is inherently reliable, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.

Appellate Review and Issues Raised

In his appeal, DIZON contended that the trial court erred in its findings, particularly regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence against him. He also emphasized the constitutional presumption of innocence and argued that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility should not be disturbed because the trial court had the advantage of observing the witnesses firsthand.

Court of Appeals Evaluation on Credibility

The appellate court emphasized that an inability to recall the specific date of an incident does not invalidate the testimony given by a victim, affirming that factual inconsistencies may arise but do not inherently compromise the credibility of the victim's account. The court recognized that the victim's emotional and psychological responses to trauma may delay or inhibit immediate reporting.

Imposition of Penalty and Damages

The court upheld the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty, reasoning that the legal framework at the time classified t

...continue reading

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