PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDISON
C. MAGBITANG, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 175592, June 14, 2016
BERSAMIN, J.:
Facts: Magbitang was charged with rape with homicide under the information filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija on February 22, 1999 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Evidence
for the State shows that at around 5 p.m. of December 25, 1998, 7-year old AAA asked
permission from her mother, BBB, to go to a nearby store. BBB allowed her
daughter to leave the house, but the child did not return home. Later that
evening, the child's lifeless body was found by the riverbank. The post-mortem
examination of her cadaver revealed that she had succumbed to asphyxiation, and
that there were "incidental findings compatible to rape." The
lone witness to what had befallen AAA was 6-year old CCC, who recalled in court
that he and AAA had been playing when Magbitang approached AAA; and that
Magbitang brought AAA to his house. CCC testified on re-direct examination that
he had witnessed Magbitang raping AAA (inasawa), as well as burning her
face with a cigarette (sininit-sinit).
Magbitang, denying the accusation, claimed that he had attended a baptismal
party on December 25, 1998, and had been in the party from 4:00 p.m.to 5:00
p.m.; that from the party he had gone looking for his nephew to have the latter
tend to his watermelon farm; that he had returned home by around 6 p.m.; that
at around 7:30 p.m., he had gone to his farm to check on his nephew; and that
he and his wife had remained in the farm until 4 a.m. of the following day.
RTC: Guilty. The RTC held that CCC
had the capacity to observe, recollect and communicate what he had witnessed;
hence, he was entitled to credence. It ruled that sufficient circumstantial
evidence pointing to Magbitang as the author of the rape with homicide existed
in the records considering his being the last person seen with AAA; that he had
admitted leaving the drinking session at the party around 4:00 p.m. or 5:00
p.m., thereby substantiating CCC's testimony; and that AAA's lifeless body had
been found at the back of his house.
CA.
Affirmed
Issue(s):
1. Whether CCC is a competent witness; and
2. Whether RTC and CA convicted the
accused based on circumstantial evidence
Ruling:
1. Yes.
Under the Rules of Court, a child may be a
competent witness, unless the trial court determines upon proper showing that
the child's mental maturity is such as to render him incapable of perceiving
the facts respecting which he is to be examined and of relating the facts
truthfully.13 The testimony of the child of sound mind with the
capacity to perceive and make known the perception can be believed in the
absence of any showing of an improper motive to testify.14 Once
it is established that the child fully understands the character and nature of
an oath, the testimony is given full credence.15 In the case of
CCC, the Defense did not persuasively discredit his worthiness and competence
as a witness. As such, the Court considers the reliance by the trial court on
his recollection fully justified.
2.
No, we dismiss the argument of Magbitang that the trial court erroneously
relied on circumstantial evidence to establish his criminal responsibility for
the rape with homicide. The evidence of guilt against him consisted in both
direct and circumstantial evidence. The direct evidence was supplied by CCC's
testimony, while the circumstantial evidence corroborated CCC's testimony. Such
evidence, combined, unerringly pointed to Magbitang, and to no other, as the
culprit.
In this connection, it is worth reminding that
circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker in persuasive quality than
direct evidence. As the Court said in People v. Villaflores:
We
have often conceded the difficulty of proving the commission of rape when only
the victim is left to testify on the circumstances of its commission. The difficulty
heightens and complicates when the crime is rape with homicide, because there
may usually be no living witnesses if the rape victim is herself killed. Yet,
the situation is not always hopeless for the State, for the Rules of Court also
allows circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of the crime as well
as the identity of the culprit. Direct evidence proves a fact in issue directly
without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the factfinder;
in contrast, circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue, such
that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial
evidence. To be clear, then, circumstantial evidence may be
resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting
a felon free.
The Rules of Court makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and
evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred;
hence, no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial
than when it is direct. In either case, the trier of fact must be convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Nor
has the quantity of circumstances sufficient to convict an accused been fixed
as to be reduced into some definite standard to be followed in every instance.
Thus, the Court said in People v. Modesto;
The
standard postulated by this Court in the appreciation of circumstantial
evidence is well set out in the following passage from People vs.
Ludday: "No general rule can be laid down as to the
quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice. All the
circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with
the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis
except that of guilt."
WHEREFORE, the
Court AFFIRMS the conviction of EDISON C. MAGBITANG for
rape with homicide.
0 Comments