Case Summary (G.R. No. 131636)
Case Background and Trial Proceedings
Artemio was arraigned on thirteen counts of rape, consolidated into Criminal Case No. 9375. At trial, Elven testified seeing Artemio commit the act, describing witnessing Artemio on top of AAA performing a pumping motion. Neighbor Eddie Sicat testified to seeing a similar scene from a hole in the destroyed sawali wall of the victim’s house. Gloria Pagala, the victim’s mother and former common-law wife of Artemio, testified about her children’s living arrangements and her report to the NBI after learning of AAA’s pregnancy and alleged sexual abuse. Medical evidence from Dr. Rosario Fider showed AAA was pregnant and had healed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse. The victim also gave a sworn statement to the NBI.
Defense's Case
Artemio’s counsel testified that the house was dark and windows shut, making it impossible to see inside, aiming to impeach Eddie Sicat’s eyewitness account. The defense argued the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and untruthful, with claims that Elven’s testimony suffered from leading questions and possible ill motives rooted in Artemio’s strict and alcoholic nature. The defense also challenged the credibility of rebuttal witnesses Gloria and Celestino, alleging personal biases and conflicts.
Trial Court's Decision
The Regional Trial Court convicted Artemio of rape in one case, sentencing him to death, and acquitted him in the other twelve cases due to lack of evidence. The court awarded moral damages of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000 to the victim.
Appellant’s Arguments on Appeal
Artemio contested the trial court’s acceptance of prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, arguing lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt and raising issues regarding Elven’s competency under the filial privilege rule. He highlighted inconsistencies regarding the time and place of the offense and claimed it was improbable to witness the crime given the dark conditions of the house.
Evaluation of Witness Competency and Credibility
The Supreme Court ruled that Elven’s competency was not barred by the filial privilege, which is a right to refuse to testify rather than an absolute disqualification. Elven voluntarily waived this privilege. Leading questions posed to a child witness were permissible under Rule 132, Section 10(c) of the Rules of Court. Allegations of ill motive against Elven were unsubstantiated, and the court gave full credence to his testimony given his tender age and the nature of the case.
On Alleged Inconsistencies in Testimonies
Minor discrepancies such as the exact time of the rape (night vs. early morning) were deemed inconsequential as time is not an element of the crime of rape. Inconsistencies in minor details related to residence and timing did not impair the overall credibility of the witnesses, especially since their testimonies agreed on material facts. The Court also noted these discrepancies could be signs of truthful testimony rather than fabrication.
On the Visibility Argument and Rebuttal Testimonies
The Court accepted the rebuttal testimonies of Gloria Pagala and Celestino Navarro establishing that the sawali walls of the house had holes allowing visibility. Thus, it was possible for Elven and Eddie to observe the crime despite poor lighting conditions. Familiarity between Elven and Artemio further nullified arguments that the witness could have mistaken the identity of the perpetrator.
On Credibility of Witnesses Alleged to Have Ulterior Motives
The Court found no compelling evidence of bias or ill-motive by Gloria Pagala or Celestino Navarro. It emphasized that a mother’s testimony in rape cases is generally given full weight as she would not subject her child to trauma without just cause. Moreover, Celestino clarified that the lot ownership allegations had been misstated by the defense.
On the Imposition of the Death Penalty and Proof of Age
The trial court imposed the death penalty based on qualifying circumstances under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659: that the victim was under 18 years old and the offender her father. However, the Court found the victim’s age was not sufficiently proven. No birth certificate or equivalent authen
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 131636)
Facts and Procedural History
- Artemio Invencion y Soriano was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac with thirteen counts of rape in separate complaints, all dated October 17, 1996. These cases were consolidated and jointly tried under Criminal Case Nos. 9363 to 9375.
- At arraignment, Artemio pleaded not guilty to each count.
- The complainant was his 16-year-old daughter, AAA.
- The RTC convicted Artemio in Criminal Case No. 9375 for rape of his daughter AAA, sentencing him to death, awarding moral and exemplary damages to the victim, and costs of suit.
- Artemio was acquitted in the other twelve cases for lack of evidence.
- This decision of the RTC was subjected to automatic review before the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Testimonies and Evidence Presented
- Prosecution Witnesses:
- Elven Invencion: An 8-year-old half-brother to AAA and son of Artemio (from a second common-law wife). Testified he saw Artemio on top of AAA, performing the act of rape during the night before the end of the school year in 1996.
- Eddie Sicat: A 40-year-old neighbor who testified he witnessed Artemio raping AAA between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. on a day in the second week of March 1996 through a hole in the sawali wall of Artemio’s house.
- Gloria Pagala: Mother of AAA and former common-law wife of Artemio; she confirmed her daughter’s pregnancy and reported the abuse to the NBI after AAA’s confession.
- Dr. Rosario Fider: Physician who examined AAA and found her pregnant (5-6 months) with healed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual abuse.
- Atty. Florencio Canlas: NBI agent before whom AAA made a sworn statement alleging rape by her father.
- Rebuttal Witnesses:
- Gloria Pagala and Celestino Navarro: Testified regarding the physical condition of the hut Artemio and his children were residing in, confirming holes in the sawali walls existed, which allowed visibility inside the room where the alleged rape happened.
Defense Evidence and Arguments
- No direct testimony from Artemio.
- Defense counsel, Atty. Isabelo Salamida, testified that the hut was dark even during the day and windows were shut and locked, making it impossible to witness the alleged act.
- Defense challenged:
- The competency and credibility of Elven invoking the filial privilege.
- Credibility of prosecution witnesses by highlighting inconsistencies in testimonies regarding time, place of residence, and circumstances of the alleged rape.
- The possibility of witnessing the act given the lighting conditions inside the hut.
- Ulterior motives of Gloria and Celestino to testify falsely against Artemio.
Issue on Competency and Credibility of Witnesses
- The Supreme Court ruled that Elven’s competency as a witness was not impaired by the filial privilege under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court because the privilege is not a disqualification but a