Rule 130 Rules of Admissibility; C. Testimonial Evidence; 2. Disqualifications; a.

. Mental Capacity People v Mendoza (full name: Rolando Mendoza) Feb. 22, 1996 Davide, Jr. J SV: A case for parricide was filed against Rolando Mendoza for allegedly burning his wife, which eventually caused her death. In the trial, only 5 yr old Paul Michael (their eldest son of Rolando and Gina, the victim) was able to testify on how Rolando burned Gina. In his appeal, the accused was contending that the testimony of the boy is open to serious question and consideration. Court said that Paul Michael is competent to testify, saying that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined. The court enumerated the 3 requirements of child competency as a witness and said that it is up to the trial court to determine whether the child is of sufficient intelligence according to the requirements. SC defers to such observation since the lower court had the opportunity to observe the witness. Appeal denied. Facts: Nov. 22, 1989- Maria Gina Mendoza, a mother of three young children1, was put to fire in her home in Bulacan. Because of this, she suffered 2nd-4th degree burns and died. Her husband, the accused, was charged with parricide in an information filed with RTC Bulacan. The information said that he used kerosene gas to burn her, eventually causing her death. Upon arraignment, Mendoza entered a plea of not guilty. The witnesses presented by Prosecution were: Paul Michael (5 yr old son of victim and accused), Jhun (brother), Teofisto (father), and Rodora Avila (sister of victim), and Dr. Nieto Salvador (Medico-legal officer of the NBI). Defense on the other hand presented the accused and Erlinda Porcincula, a childhood friend. Prosecutions version: In the evening of the incident, Rolando and Maria were in their residence with their children. At around 4 am the next morning, relatives of Rolando went to Jhuns (Marias brother) house to tell him that his sister got burned. 2 hours later they 2arrived at Ginas house, only to discover that they werent there. The things inside the house were in disarray; saw a Coke bottle which smelled of kerosene, hair strands and burned human flesh in the comfort room; and Ginas burned clothes outside the house. They also noticed that the branches and leaves of the tree outside the house were somewhat burned. They went to a neighbors house where the kids were temporarily sheltered. Paul Michael was in a corner and somewhat tulala. Jhun then brought the children to his house. Erlinda informed them that Gina was brought to Manila Sanitarium in Pasay. When they arrived, Gina was inside the operating room so they werent able to talk to her. It was only after 2 days that Jhun was able to see Gina, who lay "naked with all the hospital gadget[s] in the mouth and at the head and she was completely bald and her body was burned." Jhun also testified that Gina was unable to talk to her sister Rodora nor her father Teofisto. Nov. 30 Gina died. Dr. Minay, the Medico-Legal Officer of NBI, conducted the autopsy and said that the cause of death was "hypostatic pneumonia; infected 4th degree burns." In view of Dr.
Paul Michael (eldest), John-John, and Paula Jhun, Teofisto, and Rodora Avila

1 2

Minays resignation sometime after he examined the victim, Dr. Salvador was the one who testified on the certification and autopsy report. Jhun told Paul Michael that his mother had died. Paul Michael then narrated what actually happened to his mother. Because of this, Jhun reported the matter to the police authorities in Sta Mesa. Jhun had gone 5 times to Rolandos residence to no avail. The latter never showed up to Ginas wake or burial, and it was only when Rolando was arrested in the house of a woman in Bulacan that Jhun firs saw him. Only 5-year old Paul Michael could testify as to how Gina was burned: One evening inside their house, his father boxed his mother on her mouth and then tied her up. The witness didnt answer succeeding questions seeking to elicit what really happened, although he kept on looking at his father while he was testifying. He later revealed that he saw matches and kerosene in their house. He likewise declared that his mother was now in heaven because she was dead. During his rebuttal testimony, Paul Michael categorically declared that it was his father who burned his mother. A drunk Rolando first tied the victims hands behind her back, poured kerosene on the front of her body and set her aflame. They quarreled because she wanted Paul Michael to go with his father to the street corner, but Rolando refused. Many times before, his parents have always quarreled because his father was always drunk. (See appendix for full testimony)

Defenses version: ERLINDA On Nov. 22, Rolanda went to her house asking for help because his wife burned herself. They borrowed the jeep of her neighbor so they could bring his wife to St. Marys Hospital, but the attending physician said that she should be brought to PGH since rooms were unavailable (uhm SERYOSO?). On the way to PGH, Gina told Erlinda that she was fed up with her life and was entrusting her children to her. They went to Manila Sanitarium Hospital. Rolando requested Erlinda to buy medicine and inform the relatives of what happened, which she agreed to do. She was able to visit the victim a few times before she died, and 2 out of 3 times Rolanda was at the hospital. On Nov. 22, 3 persons who wanted to befriend him visited his house, brought liquor, and had a drinking session with him, which lasted for an hour or two. When the three left, he accompanied them out, and when he returned home, he saw his wife jumping up and down removing her burning clothes. He saw a pail of water and used the same to douse out the flames, but his wife cursed him and said: "Putang-ina mo sawang-sawa na ako sa buhay na ito," and "Huwag mo akong pakialaman." He did not mind her, proceeding to remove her dress and cried for help. Neighbors arrived and he asked one of them who owned a vehicle to help him bring his wife to the hospital. When they arrived at St. Marys but they were advised to bring her to a hospital in Manila because they had no burn specialist. The driver refused, however, since he didnt have a license. Eventually they went to Manila Sanitarium after PGH refused to admit the victim. He stayed with his wife from the time she was admitted up to the time she died, and even bought the needed medicines. He did not attend her wake nor burial because of the threats his brother-inlaw made. When asked if he knew why his wife burned herself, he surmised that she was "aburido" from financial difficulties.

ROLANDO

[TC] convicted Rolando of Parricide

The accused files an appeal, praying for a reversal of the decision. He underscores the fact that Paul Michael was in custody of the family of Gina who were hostile against him, pursued the charge against him, and who brought the child to testify. As such, Rolando asks the court to disregard Paul Michaels testimony for being "open to serious question and consideration" as it was "often attended [by] unintelligible answers and punctuated by contrary answers to previously given answers"; "[b]esides the child's tender age, he suffer[s] from [a] lack or inadequacy of sense of duty to tell the truth." Issue: Should the appeal of Rolando be granted? (NO) Sec. 20, Rule 130 says: Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses . . . . With respect to the disqualification of children to be witnesses, Section 21(b) of the abovementioned rule reads: The following persons cannot be witnesses: xxx xxx xxx (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. It is clear that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined. In [US v Buncad], Prof. Wigmore says that no rule defines any particular age as conclusive of incapacity; in each instance the capacity of the particular child is to be investigated. On the same subject, Underhill says: 257. Children on the witness stand. - The [c]ompetency of a child under the age of fourteen years to testify must be shown to the satisfaction of the court. He is presumptively incompetent, but if he is shown to be competent it is immaterial how young he may be when he testifies. He is competent if he possesses mental capacity and memory sufficient to enable him to give a reasonable and intelligible account of the transaction he has seen, if he understands and has a just appreciation of the difference between right and wrong, and comprehends the character, meaning and obligation of an oath. If the witness fulfills these requirements, it is immaterial as bearing upon his competency that he is unable to define the oath or to define testimony. Requirements of childs competency as a witness are: a) Capacity of observation b) Capacity of recollection c) Capacity of communication In ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the requirements, it is settled that the trial court is called upon to make such determination. This decision rests with the trial judge, who sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligations of an oath. Since many of these cant be photographed into the record, the judges decision wont be disturbed on review unless it was shown to be erroneous. In this case, the trial court has adjudged Paul Michael to be competent to testify, and SC agrees. A close examination of his testimony shows that at the time he testified, he could be deemed a child of above average intelligence, i.e., capable of giving responsive answers to the questions

asked of him by the trial judge, as well as recalling events and relating them to such recollections. His initial hesitancy was explained by trial court: a) The first time Paul Michael was presented, the only substantial thing he testified on was that his father boxed his mother in the mouth and tied her. The child refused to answer and the Court noticed that this was because his father was directly in sight, and whenever their eyes met, the child stopped speaking. b) The second time the witness was presented, the private prosecutor covered the child and the court directed Rolando to sit away from direct sight of Paul Michael. As a result, the child was able to testify freely without hesitation. Court defers to such observation. The lower court had the opportunity to make that observation while Paul Michael was on the witness stand, hence, theres no reason to disregard the assessment made by the trial court. Regarding accuseds contention that Paul Michaels testimony could have been influenced by relatives of Gina, the court said that it is nothing but unmitigated speculation since no evidence was presented in support thereof. Also, Rolandos protestations of innocence are belied by his light as indicative of guilt on his part--the wicked man flees though no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. The explanation proffered for his flight is lame and feeble, moreover, he offered no credible proof that indeed the family of his wife had threatened him bodily harm.

APPEAL DISMISSED Digest by Krys