Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18421)
Key Dates
- February 5, 2009: Alleged rape of AAA by her father
- February 6, 2009: Filing of Information for rape
- March 9, 2009: Arraignment (accused pleads not guilty)
- November 24, 2011: RTC conviction of the accused
- March 25, 2013: Court of Appeals affirms RTC decision
- November 26, 2014: Supreme Court decision (automatic review)
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 14(2) (right to confront witnesses)
- Revised Penal Code, Articles 266-A(2) and 266-B(5)(1), as amended by R.A. No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law) and Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 8369 (Family Courts Act)
- Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sections 36 (personal knowledge) and 42 (res gestae exception to hearsay)
Factual Background
AAA alleged that her father, Anecito Estibal, took advantage of his moral ascendancy to have sexual intercourse with her on February 5, 2009. The victim’s mother (BBB) accompanied AAA to barangay officials, who arrested the accused the same evening and referred the case to the police. AAA and BBB later moved to an unknown address and did not testify at trial despite subpoenas.
Trial Court Findings
The RTC relied on:
- Stipulated medico-legal findings by Dr. Baluyot showing healed anogenital lacerations diagnostic of blunt-force trauma;
- Stipulated barangay security officers’ testimony recounting AAA’s complaint;
- PO3 Cobardo’s account of AAA’s spontaneous narration of multiple rapes, including the February 5 incident, and her demeanor of distress.
The RTC treated AAA’s statements as part of the res gestae, admitting them as exceptions to the hearsay rule, and found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Court of Appeals Rationale
On appeal, the CA agreed that AAA’s statements to the barangay tanods and to PO3 Cobardo qualified as res gestae under Rule 130, Section 42. It applied the traditional five-factor test for spontaneity—lapse of time, place, condition, absence of intervening events, and nature of the declaration—and held that less than 24 hours had passed and AAA’s age and trauma precluded fabrication. It concluded that the combined testimony and medical report established guilt.
Issue on Automatic Review
Whether AAA’s incriminatory statements to barangay officials and the police were admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule, and whether the prosecution met its burden to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt in light of the accused’s constitutional right to confront witnesses.
Legal Principles on Res Gestae and Hearsay
- Section 36, Rule 130: A witness may testify only to matters within personal knowledge.
- Section 42, Rule 130 (res gestae): Declarations made “while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto” may be admitted if spontaneous and without time for fabrication.
- Constitutional right (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 14[2]): In criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right “to meet the witnesses face to face.”
- Hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it falls under a recognized exception; it is devoid of probative value if the original declarant is not subject to cross-examination.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
Lack of Spontaneity
AAA first disclosed the abuse to her cousin DDD, then to her mother BBB in the afternoon—five years after the first rape. By the time she spoke to barangay tanods (5–6 p.m.) and later to PO3 Cobardo, her statements were the product of deliberation and resolve to pursue criminal charges, prompted by her mother. This interval and intervening events destroyed the spontaneity required for res gestae.Violation of Confrontation Clause
AAA and BBB never testified at trial. The only evidence of AAA’s allegations came through hearsay recounting by non-eyewitnesses who heard her statements outside of court. These declarations were not admissible unless part of res gestae, and their admission deprived the accused of the oppo
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-18421)
Procedural History
- The accused-appellant, Anecito Estibal y Calungsag, was charged 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 Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 8369.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City (Branch 69) convicted him on November 24, 2011, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without parole and ordering payment of civil, moral, and exemplary damages.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05374 affirmed the RTC decision by its March 25, 2013 decision.
- The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court, leading to this final decision dated November 26, 2014.
Antecedent Facts
- On February 5, 2009, AAA, a 13-year-old daughter of the accused, reported to barangay tanods that she was raped by her father.
- The information alleged that the accused took advantage of his moral authority, using force and intimidation to have sexual intercourse with his minor daughter.
- Qualifying circumstances included the familial relationship, the victim’s minority, abuse of superior strength, and dwelling.
Prosecution Evidence
- Dr. Jesille Baluyot conducted the medico-legal examination on AAA on February 5, 2009, finding healed hymenal lacerations diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma.
- Barangay Security Force members Michael Estudillo and Ronilo Perlas arrested the accused without a warrant on the evening of February 5, 2009, based on the victim’s report.
- Police Officer 3 Fretzie S. Cobardo of the PNP Women and Children Protection Center investigated, took AAA’s sworn statement late that same evening, and observed the victim’s emotional state.
- PO3 Cobardo testified that AAA, uncoached and without leading questions, narrated repeated sexual abuse by her father since Grade III and the rape that morning.
Defense Case
- The accused denied the charge, claiming he retired to bed with his children around midnight and could not have abused AAA between 1:00–2:00 a.m.
- He suggeste