Case no.

10

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
DIONISIO CABUDBOD y TUTOR and EDGAR CABUDBOD y LACROA, Appellants.

G.R. No. 176348 April 16, 2009

QUISUMBING, J.

Topic: Sufficiency of Evidence

Certificate of Live Birth is a public document which has in its favor the presumption of regularity.

Facts of the Case: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of which had affirmed with modification the Joint Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of xxx, Branch 109 in Criminal Cases Nos. 00-1879, 00-1880 and 00-1881. Edgar, German and
Dionisio appealed. German later withdrew his appeal and accepted the trial court’s decision The appellate court had found
appellants Dionisio T. Cabudbod and Edgar L. Cabudbod guilty of qualified rape and simple rape through force and intimidation,
respectively, committed against AAA. AAA was only five years old when Fernando, appellant Dionisio T. Cabudbod’s son,
brought her to their house. She was 11 years old at the time the rape was committed, as shown in her Certificate of Live Birth.On
October 9, 2000, between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m., AAA’s foster brother, appellant Edgar L. Cabudbod, entered the room in the second
floor where AAA was sleeping. Edgar removed her underwear and warned her not to shout. Edgar undressed himself, kissed her
private part and raped her. Edgar has raped AAA three times prior to October 9, 2000.On October 13, 2000, at around 5:00 p.m.,
AAA was inside their house watching television while her foster mother BBB was outside playing bingo. German L. Tordecillas,
AAA’s foster cousin, went to their house and joined her in watching television. Suddenly, German held her hands and pointed a
knife at her. He ordered her to lie down on the wooden bed in the sala and removed her shorts and underwear. He undressed
himself and raped her. German warned her not to tell anyone about the incident otherwise he would kill her. German has
molested AAA before for more than 10 times.On October 14, 2000, at around 8:00 p.m., AAA’s foster father, appellant Dionisio T.
Cabudbod, entered the room in the second floor where AAA was sleeping. BBB and AAA’s foster brothers were then watching
television downstairs. AAA was awakened when Dionisio locked the door. He immediately covered her mouth with a piece of
cloth, removed her underwear and raped her. Dionisio warned her not to tell anyone about the incident otherwise he would kill
her. Dionisio has raped AAA before for more than 10 times. During cross-examination, AAA testified that she did not tell BBB, her
foster mother about the rape incidents because they were not close and she was afraid of the appellants. It was only three years
after the first rape that she confided to her classmate, Melvina Tallon, about what happened to her. Melvina accompanied her to
their school guidance counselor, Orpha Juan, to whom AAA related what happened in the presence of their class adviser, Ms.
Elizabeth Conwi. Thereafter, they reported the incident to Barangay Captain Reynaldo R. Gubaton. Reynaldo referred AAA to
Ma. Erlinda N. Aguila of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, in xxx for proper assistance.Dr. Mariella S. Castillo
of the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital physically examined AAA. Based on the Final Medico-Legal Report
she issued, AAA has healed hymenal lacerations at 5 o’clock and 6 o’clock positions and a scar tissue in the fossa navicularis.
Dr. Castillo concluded that there was a penetration caused by a blunt object or an erect penis.For their part, appellants denied
the charges and claimed that AAA fabricated it to seek revenge against them.

Issues: (1) Were the physical and medical evidence sufficient to prove that appellants raped AAA?

(2) Did the inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony render her credibility suspect?

(3) Was AAA’s minority sufficiently proven?

Held: 1. There is no gainsaying that medical evidence is merely corroborative, and is even dispensable, in proving the crime of
rape. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In the instant case, the medical evidence showed that AAA has healed hymenal
lacerations at 5 o’clock and 6 o’clock positions and a scar tissue in the fossa navicularis. Indeed, this Court has sustained
convictions for rape despite the fact that healed, and not fresh, hymenal lacerations were detected after an examination
conducted on the same day, the following day, or three days after the commission of the rape. Lacerations, whether healed or
fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. Thus, the absence of fresh hymenal lacerations does not prove that
appellants did not rape AAA. On the contrary, the healed hymenal lacerations confirmed, rather than belied, AAA’s claim that
appellants have raped her even prior to October 9, 13 and 14, 2000. In fact, Dr. Castillo even testified that it is possible to have a
penetration without incurring a new injury.

2. We have held time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim referring to minor
details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the victim’s credibility. To every question
asked, AAA gave straightforward and forthright answers which were credible and worthy of belief. The linchpin of her testimony is
that appellants raped her. On this matter, she did not waver or contradict herself. What appellants make much of are trivial issues
that cannot foreclose the fact that they had carnal knowledge of AAA. Thus, whether she was raped in the ground floor or second
floor of the house, or whether October 9, 2000 was a Saturday or a Monday, or whether Dionisio was in xxx City or xxx Province
on October 9, 2000, are trivial details. An ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded AAA since minor lapses
are to be expected when a person is recounting the details of a horrifying experience. Hence, she cannot be expected to
mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every single lurid detail of her harrowing experience. Far from eroding
her credibility, her lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity for they show that her testimony was neither rehearsed nor
contrived.

3. The information in Criminal Case No. 00-1879 specifically alleged that AAA was a minor at the time she was raped and that
the offender, Dionisio, is her guardian. During the trial, the prosecution proved the presence of the qualifying circumstances of
minority and relationship through documentary and testimonial evidence. As shown in her Certificate of Live Birth, AAA was born
on September 3, 1989. Therefore, at the time the rape was committed on October 9, 2000, she was 11 years old. Her
relationship to Dionisio was likewise proved by the testimonies of AAA, BBB and all three accused. Dionisio’s defense that he
and BBB merely simulated AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth should not be given credence since a Certificate of Live Birth is a public
document which has in its favor the presumption of regularity. Thus, he who alleges forgery must prove the same by clear,
positive and convincing evidence.
Case no. 38

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FELICISIMO JARA, REYMUNDO VERGARA and ROBERTO BERNADAS, defendants-appellants.

G.R. No. L-61356-57 September 30, 1986

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Topic: Sufficiency of extra-judicial confessions as the sole basis for the imposition of the supreme penalty of DEATH.

Facts of the Case: The facts according to the prosecution are as follows: At about 6:00 o'clock in the early morning of June 9,
1978, the waitresses at Alvin's Canteen situated in Malvar Street, Puerto Princesa City, wondered why their employer, the
deceased Amparo Bantigue, did not answer when they called at her door that morning. They went to the kitchen and peeped
through a hole. They saw Amparo and Luisa Jara seemingly asleep. They again went to the door and knocked but still no answer
came. The waitresses called one of Luisa Jara's waitresses at Aileen's canteen next door. Becoming apprehensive, they went
back to the kitchen for a second look. They discovered the following- . Amparo and Luisa were both lying in bed; Luisa was
dressed only in her underwear and there was dried blood in one of her hands; Amparo, seemingly asleep, lay beside her. Finally,
they decided to inform Luisa's daughter, Minerva, about their apprehension. When they met Minerva at the public market, she
tearfully accompanied them back to Amparo's room. When no one answered their knocking, Minerva kicked open the door.
Inside, they found the two women dead from wounds inflicted on their persons.. Inside the room, several ceramic piggy banks
belonging to Amparo containing coins were missing. Scattered underneath the window of Amparo's bedroom were coins and bits
and pieces of what used to be ceramic piggy banks. Later, two suspects in the killing, appellants Reymundo Vergara and
Roberto Bernadas. were apprehended. After investigation, they confessed their guilt to the Provincial Commander of the
Philippine Constabulary in Palawan and other police investigators. They also positively Identified appellant Felicisimo Jara as the
mastermind who had plotted the killing and who promised them a fee of P1,000.00 each for their participation . Reymundo
Vergara and Roberto Bernadas retracted their respective extra-judicial confessions admitting their participation in the crimes
charged and Identifying their mastermind" as the accused Jara during proceedings before the Inquest Fiscal. They contested the
admissibility of the extra-judicial confessions and the subsequent re- enactment of the crime on the ground that their
participations in these occasions were not free and voluntary and were without the benefit of counsel.

Issue: Whether or not the extra-judicial confessions made by the accused are admissible as evidence against them

Whether or not the requirements for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction are present in this case

Held: 1. The stereotyped "advice" appearing in practically all extrajudicial confessions which are later repudiated has assumed
the nature of a "legal form" or model. Police investigators either automatically type it together with the curt "Opo" as the answer
or ask the accused to sign it or even copy it in their handwriting. Its tired, punctilious, fixed, and artificially stately style does not
create an impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused. The showing of a spontaneous, free,
and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing. Whenever a protection given by the Constitution is waived by the person
entitled to that protection, the presumption is always against the waiver. Consequently, the prosecution must prove with strongly
convincing evidence to the satisfaction of this Court that indeed the accused willingly and voluntarily submitted his confession
and knowingly and deliberately manifested that he was not interested in having a lawyer assist him during the taking of that
confession. That proof is missing in this case. Apart from their extra-judicial confessions, no other evidence to implicate
Bernadas and Vergara as perpetrators of the killing was introduced by the prosecution. Since these confessions are inadmissible
in evidence, the two appellants have to be acquitted. The strongest evidence against Felicisimo Jara are the extra-judicial
confessions of his two co-accused. Bernadas and Vergara point to Jara as the one who bludgeoned the two victims with a
hammer and then used a pair of scissors in inflicting the stab wounds. He was also alleged to have offered them P1,000.00 each
if they would help him in the killing of his wife. However, since the confessions of Bernadas and Vergara are inadmissible against
them, with more reason can they not be used against Jara.

2. The requirements for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction are present in this case. Evidence attesting to the
fact that accused Jara and his wife had not been in good terms for about three years before the killings was presented. They
used to quarrel with each other and they had not been sleeping together since the deceased Luisa Jara slept at Alvin's Canteen
together with the other deceased Amparo Bantigue. Godofredo Anasis nephew of Luisa Jara, testified that his aunt was a
"tomboy" and that she and Amparo Bantigue lived together as "husband and wife." The two went to the movies together. The
relationship of the two women angered Felicisimo Jara and was a cause of their frequent quarrels. He resented not only his wife
but also her woman companion. The testimony on the fact of Luisa Jara and Amparo Bantigue sleeping together is corroborated
by the fact that they were bludgeoned to death while sleeping on one bed and their bodies discovered on that same bed. At the
Aileen's Canteen managed by the deceased Luisa, accused Felicisimo Jara did the cooking and whenever he committed even
the slightest mistakes, his wife scolded and cursed him, treating him as though he were only one of the servants of the
restaurant. (TSN, May 31, 1979, pp. 1821-1830). The records are replete with testimony to show that Felicisimo Jara had reason
to hate his wife enough to kill her and her companion. The lower court, in its decision, stated that the nature and the number of
wounds, reflected in the autopsy reports, convincingly show that only a person who had harbored so much hate and resentment
could have inflicted such multiple fatal blows. It opined that accused Jara is the only person who would have sufficient motive to
wish the death of the deceased for he had not been treated well as a husband by his wife. During the investigation at the scene
of the crime, blood stains were found splattered in the trousers and shirt worn by accused Jara. His eyeglasses were also
smeared with blood. When asked to explain the presence of said blood stains, accused Jara told the police that before he
learned about the killing, he was with his stepdaughter Minerva Jimenez in the public market dressing chickens. He also said in
his testimony in open court that when he saw his wife lying dead on the bed, he approached her and hugged her in his effort to
wake her up., the NBI biologist verified in her report that the blood stains were not chicken blood but human blood (Exhibit "L").
The blood stains found in accused Jara's trousers formed certain Identical circular patterns, a splattering of blood which,
according to the NBI biologist, could be caused by an instrument like that of a hammner. Such circular patterns will only occur at
the time of the impact of the instrument, the very moment it hits the victim. He further explained that there was no possibility of
the splattering of blood if the victim died hours before because blood starts to coagulate or clog 15 minutes after the wound is
caused. The blood of the deceased victims in the case at bar had already qqqcoagulated in the morning of June 9, 1978 when
accused Jara claimed that the blood stains on his shirt were smudged when he hugged his wife. The NBI biologist, whose
findings were later signed by the Chief of the Forensic Chemistry Division testified that human blood was found on the
eyeglasses of appellant Jara, on the front side lower portion of the left leg of the trousers, at the left buttocks of the pants and the
back portion near the trousers, and smudged human blood stains on the appellant's T-shirt. The human blood stains were Type
B. A failure to get evidence on the blood types of the two victims keeps this second circumstantial evidence, together with the
clear motive, from being well-nigh conclusive. However, it is still strong evidence in the chain of circumstances pointing to Jara as
the killer of his wife. Another circumstance is the cover-up attempt by Jara. He lied about the blood on his clothes and
eyeglasses. He falsely claimed that the blood came from the chickens he had been slaughtering for the market. There is no
explanation about the source and cause of the human blood stains splattered all over him.