025 People of the PH vs.
Victor Taneo alias Opao, a certain Bebot Escoreal and a Junguera clinic for a few hours. At one time, Codilla introduced his friend
certain Roy Codilla
Facts:
♥ Taneo, Escoreal and Codilla were charged with the crime of Robbery with
Homicide by Asst. City Fiscal Salvador Solima of Cebu in an information
which reads:
That on or about 22 Dec. 1986 in Cebu, said accused connibing together armed with
a bottle of beer grande and RC Cola, with deliberate intent, entered the house of
Herminia Sia y Sy and once inside, stole and carry away the ff:
one (1) sharp cassette valued at…................................. P3,500.00
one (1) Denonet Karaoke valued at…................................. 7,000.00
one (1) Sony cassette recorder…................................. 1,000.00
Fifty (50) pcs. Of cassette tape…................................. 2,000.00
one (1) casio calculator…................................. 100.00
TOTAL…................................. P13,600.00
With intent, the accused used personal violence upon Linda Aglipa Robert, maid of
Herminia Sia y Sy, by hacking Linda with said bottle of beer grande and RC Cola at
her head and face, inflicting the following injuries:
cardio respiratory arrest
massive pneumonia bl
cerebral contussion
open depressed communiated fx frontal
area (r) multiple lacerations on the face
As a consequence of which Linda died instantaneously.
♥ Only accused Victor Taneo and Roy Codilla were apprehended. Accused
Bebot Escoreal has remained at large and an alias warrant for his arrest
issued on 9 Feb. 1987 was returned unserved for the reason that his
address is unknown.
♥ 9 Feb. 1987- Roy Codilla entered a plea of not guilty while Victor Taneo
voluntarily pleaded guilty. The trial court then issued an order finding
Taneo guilty and sentencing him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
♥ Trial on the merits against Roy Codilla ensued. Witnesses who testified for
the prosectution were Dr. Herminia Sia, accused Victor Taneo, Pat. Enrico
Ministerio and Dr. Jaime Perez while those who testified for the defense
were accused Roy Codilla, Police Cpl. Jovito Roa, Lolit Cabriana and
Felicidad Pareño.
♥ Evidence for the parties is summarized as follows:
● Dr. Herminia Sia is an optometrist and a resident of St. Michael Village,
Banilad, Cebu. 2 years ago, sometime in 1984, she lost 2 big cassette
recorders and decied to hire a security guard. A Sgt. Codinas and armyman
recommended accused Roy Codilla. Roy Codilla spent most of his time in
securing the Banilad residence. There will be times that he will guard the
Bebot Escoreal to Dr. Sia. When Codilla started bringing friends to Dr. Sia’s
house, Dr. Sia felt uncomfortable as his friends were suspicious looking
who turned out to be jeepney dispatchers in the area, eventually, Dr. Sia
fired Codilla.
● 2 years later, Dr. Sia’s neighbors, Nicky Padriaga and Ricardo Ferrer went
to her clinic and informed her that some persons burglarized her house
who were apprehended and the injured maid was brought to a hospital.
● At the Mabolo Police Station, she saw Victor Taneo, Arnel Go and Jose
Robert, her houseboy and brother of her maid Landa. She asked Jose
Robert why he was there, and he answered that after Taneo and Go were
arrested, he was brought along by the police for questioning. Jose Roberts
said that Codilla invited him to drink beer in a small store behind Dr. Sia’s
residence. Victor Taneo claimed that it was Roy Codilla who told him to go
along with him to the house of Dr. Sia to get the catssette recorder.
● At the ground floor of Perpetual Succour Hospital, the severely injured and
bloody maid managed to reveal to Dr. Sia in the presence of Corazon
Gonzales and Patrolman Lopez, that Roy Codilla was the one who struck
her.
● Co-accused Victor Taneo alias Opao (Kalbo) testified that he is a jeepney
dispatcher while Bebot Escoreal who remained at large is his long time
friend and a barker at Juan Luna, Cebu.
● 22 Dec. 1986- Taneo saw Escoreal talking to Codilla who Escoreal
introduced to him (Taneo). After talking, Codilla revealed that he is
planning to rob the house of his former employer, Dr. Sia as his revenge.
Codilla then told Taneo to procure money to be used in entertaining Dr.
Sia’s houseboy, Jose Robert. Codilla briefed them that there is a maid and a
houseboy in Dr. Sia’s house. Codilla told them (Taneo, Escoreal and Arnel
Go) that he will bring them to Manila after robbery has been pulled.
● When they (Codilla, Taneo and Escoreal) were already outside Dr. Sia’s
residence, the houseboy Jose Robert and househelper Landa were cleaning
the yard. Codilla entered the Sia residence to invite Jose Robert outside
and he told Taneo to wait by the corner and wait for his signal. Taneo and
Escoreal then saw Codilla with Jose proceeding to a store and bought some
drinks. When the signal was given (Codilla placing his right hand on the
right side of the head), Taneo and Escoreal went inside the house. Codilla
followed leaving Jose by the store. Escoreal stayed outside as lookout.
Once inside, Cotilla boxed the maid and the maid fell down the floor.
Codilla told them to finish the maid as she was able to identify them. They
took Coke bottles under the table and struck the maid in the forehead,
mouth and head. They then took 2 cassette recorders, some cassette tapes
and calculators.
● Codilla with the loot went with Escoreal while Taneo went with Arnel Go
the other way. Taneo and Go were then arrested and was brought back to
 the residence of Dr. Sia. There, they saw the neighbors carrying the body
of the maid who was still alive.
● In jail, Codilla offered him 2000 to save him because he has a wife and
children.
● He first refused but Codilla’s wife forced him to receive the money for the
sake of his family. Codilla’s wide give him money everytime the wife visits
Codilla. In Court, he pointed at the wife of Codilla. Taneo’s mother paid
400 to COdilla because his mother did not like the idea of saving Codilla.
Taneo said that even if he were given 2,000, he would still take the witness
stand considering that he landed in jail because of Codilla.
● Arresting officer Rico Ministerio declared that he went to the house of Dr.
Sia and took custody of GO and Taneo who were captured en flagrante by
the civilians of St. Michaels Village. Codilla was then arrested in Duty Free
Lahug the day after.
● Dr. Jaime Perez testified that he treated Landa Robert for multiple
lacerations in head and face. 5 hours later, the patient died due to
compression of vital brain centers.
For the Defense:
● Police Cpl. Jovito Roa, a guard at BBRC testified that he caught 2 persons
digging a tunnel at BBRC, one of them being Victor Taneo. Upon inquiry,
Taneo told him that Roy Codilla has nothing to do with the robbery
homicide but Roa cannot recall who the other inmate was. Taneo reasoned
that he only implicated Codilla because Dr. Sia told him that she will give
him P300 if he does so, but only P200 was given to him.
● Accused Codilla testified that he was enlisted in the PH Army. He was
discharged in 1984 having gone AWOL. He was hired by Dr. Sia in 1984 as
security guard but his services were terminated in 1985.
● He denied the charge that he and Taneo committed robbery homicide in
Dr. Sia’s residence at 5:30PM because on that day, he was in the house of
his friend Jose Robert, his friend, who just arrived from Manila and went
home at 10:30Am passing first to his aunt’s house in Camp LapuLapu.
During his employment as guard, he sleeps in the bedroom of Dr. Sia since
there are 2 beds, one for her and the other for him. Dr. Sia used to call him
whenever she counts her money and deposit them in the safe inside her
room. There were 2 instances when she let him count a sizeable sum of
money. Dr. Sia instigated Taneo to implicate him because Dr. Sia hired
someone to lob a grenade in the house of the wife of his boyfriend but
Codilla stopped her. A picture of the boyfriend was shown in court. Codilla
said that it was the only reason Dr. Sia wanted him in jail.
● On cross examination, Codilla narrated the same story about the
boyfriend. That during Christmas time, Jose invited him for a dinking spree
and only the maid was left in the house. After one beer grande, Codilla
went to his brother’s house Hipodromo where he stayed until 4PM and
thereafter went to Camputhaw Lahug. He said that he only met Taneo at
the prison cell. He only knew Bebot Escoreal.
● Mrs. Lolit Cabriana, a volunteer worker in the jail ministry testified that she
met Taneo in jail and told her that he killed the maid of Dr. SIa and his
companion at that time was Escoreal. She knows Codilla and was asked
why he was in jail, he answered that he was not in Dr. Sia’s house when
the crime was committed. However, on cross-examination, she declared
that she never spoke with Codilla because he was not in her bible class.
● Felicidad PAreño testified that she is a neighbor of Codilla and in the
afternoon of 22 Dec., she was in the house of Codilla for a prayer meeting
and she saw for the first time COdilla watching TV in the 2nd floor of the
house. She went home and never saw Codilla again.
♥ The trial court gave weight to the testimony of Dr. Sia which was
straightforward and to the testimony of Taneo which was vividly detailed
and the statement made by Landa as part of the res gestae and held
Codilla guilty of the crime charged. Trial court rejected the alibi of Codilla
since Camputhaw, where he purports to be when the crime was
committed, is only less than one hour from the scene of the crime.
Moreover, he was positively identified by Taneo.
Issues:
1. W/N the Trial court erred in taking into consideration the credibility of the
witnesses, Dr. Sia, Victor Taneo and the statement made by the victim,
Landa Robert.
Ruling: RTC decision is affirmed but indemnity is increased to P50,000.
1. No.
♥ Petitioner argues it was impossible if Landa did made a statement
considering that the doctor who had treated her said that Landa had
impaired consciousness. Besides, companions of Dr. Sia Corazon Gonzales
and policeman Lopez were not presented to corroborate Sia’s testimony.
♥ He also argues that Taneo’s statement is weak because Taneo admitted to
Pat. Ministerio that it was him and Escoreal who manhandled the maid.
That Taneo’s credibility is doubtful since Taneo was already apprehended
twice for robbery but cases were dismissed on the ground of failure to
prosecute.
♥ Furthermore, he argues that appellant’s conviction is based solely on the
bare allegation of Mrs. Sia that Landa identified Codilla as her mauler and
of the testimony of Victor Taneo, which was inadmissible and weak.
♥ According to jurisprudence, when the issue of credibility of a witness is
concerned, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the
trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witness himself and observed his deportment
and manner of testifying during the trial, unless certain facts of substance
and value had been plainly overlooked which, if considered, might affect
the result of the case.
♥ Court held that there is no cogent reason to disregard the rule and give
 way to the exception.
♥ Statement of LAnda as part of res gestae was correct.
(3) requisites must concur before evidence of the res gestae may be admitted: (1)
the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were
made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements
must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances
♥ Interval of time from the occurrence of the startling event are not uniform.
What is important is that the declarations were voluntarily and
spontaneously made.
♥ Landa was hovering between life and death when she made the statement
and she could not have time to conjure up a story by falsely imputing
responsibility upon the appellant for her injuries.
♥ Regarding petitioner’s contention that Mrs. Sia may have fabricated her
testimony, Court held that the full faith and credit accorded by the trial
court to her testimony is supported by the evidence and its observation of
her demeanor.
♥ While it may be true that Dr. Sia's companions, Corazon Gonzales and a
policeman (a certain Lopez), could have been presented to corroborate her
testimony, such non-presentation did not affect the probative value of
such testimony for, as even the appellant candidly admits, the testimony of
the companions could only be corroborative.
♥ Their non-representation did not imply suppression of evidence and did
not prove to be fatal to the prosecution’s case.
♥ Appellant insists that Victor Taneo’s credibility is questionable but Sec. 20
of Rule 130 of the ROC provides: that except as provided for in the
succeeding sections, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. Religious or
political belief, interest in the outcome of the case or conviction of a
crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification. Clearly, the conviction of a crime does not disqualify
such person unless otherwise provided by law.
♥ Taneo pleaded guilty to an information which charges conspiracy. He was
not discharged as a state witness- a sure guarantee of acquittal, and he
DID NOT impute criminal responsibility SOLELY on the appellant. Hence,
if he were to testify falsely against the latter, he must have been moved
by a strong, improper and ulterior motive. That motive must have been
established which appellant failed to do so. In the absence of evidence to
show any reason or motive why witnesses for the prosecution should have
testified falsely, the logical conclusion is that no improper motive existed,
and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit
♥ On the other hand, defense of alibi must fail. Defense of alibi cannot
prevail over the positive identification of the accused.
026 PEOPLE v. SGT. JERRY BALANON
GR No. 85248-49 6 July 1994
By Kylie Dado
FACTS:
3 Nov 1980; 3PM
a) Victims Laino and Santillan, both trustee inmates of San Ramon Penal
Farm, were exchanging fist blows along the national highway in Labuan,
Zamboanga.
b) Accused Sgt. Balanon, an enlisted man of the PH Army at SOUTHCOM, was
standing nearby.
c) As the fight progressed, Sgt. Balanon left for a nearby store.
d) Ms. Sinsuan and Ms. De la Cruz, both teachers in Labuan Brgy, High School
(LBHS) were seated on a bench in the house of Alim Usman, which was 3
feet away from the road, waiting for a bus.
● They were 20-25 meters away from the protagonists.
e) One of the victims shouted for help, so Ms. Sinsuan went near to pacify
them saying, “Tama na yan”.
f) One of them retorded, “Alam mo Ma’am...” but was cut short when Sgt.
Balanon went to Ms. Sinsuan, walker her 5 meters away tolder her not to
interfere.
g) Sgt. Balanon went back to the inmates (victims), pulled a gun suddenly
from his waist, and shot them one after another twice.
h) Fearing that Sgt. Balanon was running amok, Ms. Sinsuan ran back to Ms.
De la Cruz (who was 6 months pregnant). The latter remained seated on
the bench as the startling occurrence unfolded before them.
i) The shaken tutors then proceeded on their way to the City.
6PM
a) Sgt. Balanon was picked up by some 10 members of the 36th Infantry
Batallion in connection with the killing of Laino and Santillan.
Sgt. Balanon was charged with murder on 2 counts, both qualified by evident
premeditation and treachery.
Sgt. Balanon set the defense of alibi and mistaken identity.
RTC: Convicted Sgt. Balanon of the crime charged qualified by treachery and
sentenced him to 2 terms of reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE: W/N Sgt. Balanon should be convicted of the crime charged
SC: YES (the crux of the decision leaned on the credibility of the witnesses)
Note: the italicized parts are the comments of the Supreme Court. You may
disregard my keywords.
AS TO ACACIO’S TESTIMONY (Acacio was also an inmate) (positive
identification; drunk)
Sgt. Balanon’s Defense: He stressed his presence at the SOUTHCOM
headquarters in the morning of 3 November 1980,
contrary to the testimony of prosecution witness
Rogene Acasio, also an inmate, that he was
drinking liquor with Balanon and the victims.
SC: His alibi cannot stand in the face of his clear and positive
identification by Acasio who, appellant even admitted, had no ill will
to implicate him (Balanon) in the crime. Moreover, there is no
compelling reason to depart from the assessment of the credibility of
the witnesses made by the trial judge who, unlike the reviewing court,
had the occasion and opportunity to observe their demeanor and
detect any badge of fabrication. But even granting arguendo
appellant's claim to be true, this does not contradict the testimonies
of other prosecution witnesses that he shot the victims to death.
Sgt. Balanon’s Defense: The Trial Court erred giving credence to the
testimony of Acasio who was not only probably
drunk, but was a convicted hijacker and falsifier of
public documents as well; hence, apt to fabricate
his testimony.
SC: Probability is not evidence, and even if Acasio took alcohol, it does
not follow that he was drunk. Moreover, a drunk person is competent
to testify on what he sees or experiences, however limited or hazy his
perception may be. In the same way, a hijacker or a falsifier is not
necessarily a liar. Under the Rules of Court, conviction of a crime,
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification of witnesses.
Sgt. Balanon’s Defense: Victims, being prisoners, could not have left the
Penal Colony without the permission of the warden.
SC: Irrelevant for they were admittedly shot and killed outside the prison
walls.
Sgt. Balanon’s Defense: Denied having ordered a certain handicraft
product from Acasio, by reason of which Acasio
 claims to have known him.
SC: He nonetheless admits that most of the living-out prisoners knew him
there because he used to pass by that place. The distinction sought to
be made by appellant is too trivial to affect the testimony of Acasio.
After all, he (Balanon) does not deny that Acasio knows him.
AS TO MS. SINSUAN’S TESTIMONY (Scar)
Sgt. Balanon’s Defense: He is not the assailant described since he does not
have any wound/stitches behind his ears.
Ms. Sinsuan simply described the assailant as "tall about 5'7" above,
medium or little slim, fair complexion, slit eyes, plain long hair (minus
haircut along the wound with stitches,” and nothing was categorically said
about the location of the wound.
Since Luningning was describing appellant's hair when she took exception
to a then visible haircut bordering a wound, said wound could have been
on appellant's pate or head which, when the prosecutor took a look
behind appellant's ears, could have been hidden by his long hair.
As correctly observed by the SolGen, “only in June 1985 that appellant
showed his long-haired head for a cursory look, to the prosecuting fiscal,
or almost (5) years after the commission of the crime. The Sworn
Statement of Mrs. Sinsuan was taken on November 18, 1980. Appellant
was already under investigation at the time. Why did he not claim at
once that he had no scar, and instead alleged it for the first time after
almost (5) years? Why did he not let a doctor examine his head and
certify as to the presence or absence of a scar? The answer is obvious, his
scar would have been very obvious at that time, even to an untrained
eye.”
Sometimes in the course of time a scar may apparently disappear — that
is to say, not be noticeable to the casual observer — but it is always
there, to be found by him who looks carefully.
AS TO DE LA CRUZ’S TESTIMONY (2 instances – bus)
Sgt. Balanon highlighted her inconsistent statements, i.e., she allegedly
averred that she got a close view of the accused when she was still
boarding the bus, but on cue from the prosecutor, she said she was already
on board the bus.
Ms. de la Cruz could be referring to two instances when accused came
close to Ms. Sinsuan, i.e., when the latter was already inside the bus and
when she was still boarding the bus, and the follow-up question of the
prosecutor referred to the instance when the witnesses were still
boarding. But even if we consider as inconsistent this portion of Ms. de la
Cruz' testimony, this is too trivial to affect their straightforward account
of the shooting of the victims by appellant.
AS TO ROLANDO DANO’S TESTIMONY
1. Rolando did not see any teachers nor heard gun shots at the scene of
the crime
SC: Trial Court was correct in disregarding such as he admitted he did
not know all the teachers of LBHS, and he went to the scene only
after the shooting was over.
2. He saw the accused coming out from the Orellano store at 3pm
Sgt. Balanon’s Defense: Rolando could not have been précised in
stating the time because he was not wearing a watch on that day
SC: Such should not be used as a basis to totally discredit Balanon’s
testimony. Since the testimony of defense witness Daño did not do
any good to appellant's cause, the latter now belabors to justify
every unfavorable statement made by said witness. But even if we
totally disregard the statements of Daño, appellant himself, as
pointed out by the Solicitor General, admitted at one point that he
left the SOUTHCOM at about one o'clock in the afternoon, contrary
to his statement that he never left the SOUTHCOM until four-thirty in
the afternoon. Interestingly, since appellant admitted that he and
his witness Daño could not be expected to be precise in their
estimates of the time, it naturally follows that appellant could not
also state with precision that at about three o'clock that afternoon
he was not at the scene of the crime.
Trial Court’s decision is affirmed.
 027 People of the Philippines vs Eric Baid Y Ominta
FACTS:
● Nieva Gracia, is 27 year old single woman and a mental patient at Holy Spirit
Clinic in Cubao.
● It was found that sometime in Sept 1996, Accused Baid sneaked into Nieva’s
room. Upon arrival thereat, he woke the girl up and offered a cigarette to
which the latter accepted.
○ While NIeva was smoking, the accused-appellant caressed her.
Apparently, she was aroused, because she afterward removed her pants.
It turned out she was not wearing any underwear. Accused-appellant also
removed his pants and the two had sexual intercourse. Afterwards, they
transferred under the bed and continued their sexual intercourse.
Complainant said she felt accused-appellant had an orgasm. ‘
○ A female patient who had been awakened tried to separate the two, and,
as she failed to do so, she went out to call the two nurses on duty. The
nurses responded but, when they arrived, accused-appellant had left,
while complainant had already put on her pants.
○ After the incident, the complainant was brought later during the day
before Dr. Emmanuel Reyes for medico-legal examination. She told him
what happened. Dr. Reyes reduced her narration of the incident into
writing and then gave her a physical examination
○ Results of the examination: the abraided posterior fourchette and an
elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep healed lacerations at 3, 6 and 9
o'clock. External vaginal orifice offers moderate resistance to the
introduction of the examining finger and the virgin-sized speculum.
Vaginal canal is wide with flattened rugosities.
TRIAL COURT: Found Baid guilty beyond reasonable groups for the crime of rape.
CA: Upon appeal to the CA, the appellant raised that given the condition of the
victim and allegd that the complainant was suffering from schizophrenia, a
psychotic disorder of unknown etiology, characterized by disturbance in thinking
involving a distortion of the usual logical relations between ideas, a separation
between the intellect and the emotions so that the patient's feelings and his or
her manifestations seem inappropriate to his or her life situation, and a reduced
tolerance for the stress of interpersonal relations so that the patient retreats from
social intercourse into his or her own fantasy life and commonly into delusions
and hallucinations, and may, when untreated or unsuccessfully treated, go on to
marked deterioration or regression in his or her behavior though often
unaccompanied by further intellectual loss’
ISSUE: WON Nieva was a competent witness notwithstanding her mental condition
RULING: RTC Ruling was affirmed with modification on the award and amount of
damage.
● The SC held that notwithstanding her mental illness, complainant showed
that she was qualified to be a witness, i.e., she could perceive and was
capable of making known her perceptions to others. Her testimony indicates
that she could understand questions particularly relating to the incident and
could give responsive answers to them.
● With regard to the alleged inconsistencies between complainant's sworn
statement and her testimony as to the number of times she and accused-
appellant had sexual intercourse and where they did the same, an
examination of the evidence for the prosecution, particularly complainant's
sworn statement and her interview with the examining medico-legal officer,
shows that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her in different
positions at various places in the same room.
○ When complainant testified, she stated that, aside from the fact that
accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her on her bed, he
made her transfer later under the bed. Be that as it may, complainant
has consistently established in all of her statements that he had sexual
intercourse with her on her bed.
● the rape of complainant occurred in a room where other patients were
sleeping. This circumstance, it is argued, is antithetical to the possibility of
the commission of rape. As this Court has repeatedly said, lust is no
respecter of time and place and the crime of rape can be consummated
even when the malefactor and the victim are not alone.
● The plausibility of an allegation of rape does not depend on the number of
witnesses presented during the trial, so much so that, if the testimonies so
far presented clearly and credibly established the commission of the crime,
corroborative evidence would only be a mere surplusage.
○ In this case, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses on the basis of which it adjudged accused-
appellant guilty. In the absence of bias, partiality, and grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the presiding judge, his findings as to
their credibility are entitled to utmost respect as he had the
opportunity to observe their demeanor on the witness stand.
● Nor does the absence of spermatozoa in the genitalia of complainant
destroy the finding of rape since ejaculation is never an element thereof.
What consummates the felony is the contact of the penis of the
perpetrator, however slight, to the vagina of his victim without her
consent.
○ Neither is it required that lacerations be found in the victim's hymen. We
have held that a medical examination is not a requisite for a rape charge
to prosper as long as the victim categorically and consistently declares
that she has been defiled In this case, aside from complainant's positive
testimony, the medical examination of the complainant showed an
abrasion on her labia minora, indicating that she had recent sexual
intercourse. That the deep healed lacerations found on the complainant's
 genitalia may have been caused seven days prior to December 22, 1996 is controlling effect (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the
immaterial and irrelevant considering that she is a non-virgin. credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his
● In addition to this, the accused-appellant also claims that complainant could testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling
have been hallucinating in alleging that she had sexual intercourse with him thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that
on December 22, 1996. discretion
○ In answer, suffice it to say that complainant was steadfast and consistent
in stating that she was raped by accused-appellant. She maintained her
allegation of rape when she was physically examined by the medico-legal
officer, when she made her statement to the police and again when she
testified in court.
● That the complainant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the
rape is shown by the fact that she was in the clinic precisely because of
such illness and by her behavior at the trial, during which she would smile
for no reason at all while answering the questions. Though she may not
have totally lost her memory, it was shown that she was suffering from an
impairment of judgment, which made her incapable of giving, an
intelligent consent to the sexual act. It has been held that where the rape
victim is feeble-minded, the force required by the statute is the sexual act
itself.
● Even assuming then that the complainant consented to have sexual
intercourse with accused-appellant, the copulation would fall under the
third paragraph of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code in view of the fact
that complainant was mentally ill. Sexual intercourse with an insane,
deranged, or mentally deficient, feebleminded, or idiotic woman is rape,
pure and simple
● The fact that Dr. Salangad was hired by the family of complainant to give
expert testimony as a psychiatrist did not by that fact alone make her a
biased witness and her testimony unworthy of consideration. As has been
said:
. . . Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert
testimonies, they may place whatever weight they choose upon
such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The
relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly
within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the
ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness
stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has
supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for
whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative
opportunities for study and observation of the matters about
which he testifies, and any other matters which deserve to
illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be
arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of
all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common
knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given
 028. People vs. Lolito Honor
TOPIC: Witnesses
By Berna Solis
FACTS:
● Defendants Lolito Honor et al. were charged for the murder of Argallon
and Nodalo, and for frustrated murder against Autida.
● Prosecution presented eyewitness Panlubasan, a farm worker of a sugar
plantation whom defendants worked under. He testified that after work he
went to Doris Videoke, a small tavern at the public market of Ormoc City.
Panlubasan’s group occupied the first table at the tavern while the group
of defendants’ occupied the second table. After having consumed 1 gallon
of tuba, at aroun 9PM, Nolado accidentally dropped a bottle of Mallorca
which he was holding near the table of the defendants. The group of the
defendants then stared at them angrily. After a while, Panlubasan’s group
left the bar to go home. After a while, defendants’ group followed
Panlubasan’s group. Defendants then suddenly attacked Panlubasan’s
group. Panlubasan testified that he saw Honor and Garjas as the ones who
stabbed Nodalo, Argallon and Autida while the other defendants, Suralta
and Tumampo, verbally instigated them by uttering follow them and kill
them
● The defense then presented 3 witnesses: (a) Honor, (b) Hilde (Honor’s
wife) and Garjas
(a) Honor testified that he indeed went to the tavern to drink but he was
there for only 15 minutes and went home immediately. He stated that
he could not recall if there was a group of people in the tavern aside
from them since he was there only for a short time. He testified that
he has no knowledge of stabbing incident since he reached his home
at around 8:30 PM
(b) The testimony of Honor was corroborated by his wife, Hilde. Hilde
confirmed that his husband, Honor, arrived at their home at around
8:25PM
(c) Gajas testified that he and the other defendants were drinking at a
tavern and that there were other 2 groups drinking then. He testified
that he recognized Panlubasan’s seated with one of the groups
drinking then. He also testified that a Mallorca bottle was dropped
from the other group of drinkers. He stated that Panlubasan’s group
left ahead of them and after consuming a gallon of tuba, his group also
left. He was left behind as he was still paying for their drinks and
buying cigarettes. He was intending to take a ride home when he saw
the other defendants, Suralta and Tumampo, attack and stab the
young persons who were part of the other group in the tavern. He
confirmed that the place was well illuminated and he saw his
companions Suralta and Tumampo walk away casually after the
melee.
● RTC: Honor and Garjas were acquitted in regard to the crime of frustrated
murder. But they were found guilty of murder. RTC found that the
testimony of Garjas virtually confirmed the testimony of prosecution
eyewitness Palubasan and that the testimonies of Honor and his wife,
Hilde, were self-serving, specious and made up.
● CA: Affirmed
● Hence this appeal before the SC-Second division
● DEFENDANTS conted: CA erred in giving full faith and credence to the
testimony of eyewitness Panlubasan, which was based mainly on
generalities, without going deeply into and analysing the points and details
of his testimony. The following were cited inconsistencies: (1) when
Panlubasan stated in his direct testimony that Honor and Garjas stabbed
Argallon but on cross-examination, he pointed only to Honor as the one
who stabbed Argallon; and (2) the unusual reaction made by Panlubasan
during the melee, that Panlubasan did not run away during the stabbing
incident but instead opted to stay with the victims
ISSUE: Did the RTC and the CA err in giving credence to the testimony of
Panlubasan?
HELD: Findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best
left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed the
witnesses’ deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to
the appellate courts. When the credibility of the witnesses is at issue, appellate
courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court, the latter being in a better
position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial unless certain facts of
substance and value had been overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated
which, if considered, might affect the results of the case.
RATIO:
Minor variances in the details of a witness’ account, more frequently than not, are
badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the
probative value of the testimony. Indeed, even the most candid witnesses
oftentimes make mistakes and would fall into confused statements, and at times,
far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence, such lapses could instead
constitute signs of veracity. If it appears that the same witness has not willfully
perverted the truth, as may be gleaned from the tenor of his testimony and the
conclusion of the trial judge regarding his demeanor and behavior on the witness
stand, his testimony on material points may be accepted.
In this case, Panlubasan’s testimony positively points to the accused as the ones
who stabbed the victims. At the time of the incident, the witness may have been
under the influence of liquor; nonetheless, nothing in his testimony and conduct
during the trial appears to suggest total erosion of his mental faculties that would
negate his identification of the accused.
 029 PEOPLE v. SALOMON DIONEDA circumstance which creates reasonable doubt on his guilt being extant, his
587 SCRA 312 conviction must be upheld.
J. Carpio

TOPIC: WITNESSES (Rule 130 Sec. 20)

DOCTRINE: Forthright witnesses are not immune from committing minor

inaccuracies in their narration of events.

FACTS

● Salomon Dioneda was charged with rape before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City.
● The Information alleged that Dioneda who was then seventeen (17) years
old, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal knowledge with AAA
who was then six (6) years old.
● The RTC of Quezon City found Dioneda guilty of rape and was credited the
privilege mitigating circumstance of minority.
● The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Dioneda later assails AAA‘s
credibility due to the inconsistency of her testimonies as to the floor where
she was told to wait.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the inconsistencies of/in the narration of facts of AAA (6)
years old minor, would warrant the acquittal of Salomon Dioneda

HELD:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Dioneda.

● The place where AAA met Dioneda when she was about to leave the Dajao
residence, whether on the ground or second floor is a trivial matter. AAA, a
child of tender age, could not be expected to give a perfect recollection of
the exact floor of the house where she met appellant.

● Forthright witnesses are not immune from committing minor inaccuracies

in their narration of events.

● Trivial inconsistencies and inconsequential discrepancies on minor details

in the testimonies of witness do not impair their credibility.

● Dioneda‘s challenge to the assailed decision having failed, and no

 030 Avelino Ordoño v. Hon. Daquigan, People HOLDING and RATIO:
G.R. No. L-39012 | January 31, 1975 Yes, it is. Petition dismissed.
● The phrase “crime committed by one [spouse] against the other [spouse]”
TOPIC: Disqualification by reason of marriage is not limited to crimes literally committed against each other, but any
offense causing marital discord.
DOCTRINE: “During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for ● “Where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no
or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil more harmony to be preserved…the reason based upon such harmony and
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one tranquility fails. In such a case identity of interests disappears and the
against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.” A “crime consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is nonexistent.” 2
committed by one [spouse] against the other [spouse]” is not to be taken literally, ● “The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the person
as the husband raping their daughter counts as a crime against the wife. is too narrow; and the rule that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting
domestic harmony comes within the exception is too broad. The better
FACTS: rule is that when an offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs
● Avelino Ordoño raped his daughter Leonora on Oct. 11, 1970. Catalina, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute [that a
Leonora’s mother, executed a sworn statement that Leonora had told her spouse cannot be a witness against the other]…”3
on that day, but they did not do anything because Avelino threatened to ● In many other cases, it was held that the wife may testify against the
kill them if they went to the police. husband in a case where he was prosecuted for incest against the
● The same sworn statement by Catalina said that Avelino also raped their daughter, because incest is a crime committed against the wife.
other daughter, Rosa, in 1973, for which Avelino was already charged and
imprisoned. It was because of this that Catalina wasn’t afraid to come
forward about Leonora.
● In the CFI of La Union, Catalina was presented as second prosecution
witness, but the defense objected to her competency, invoking the marital
disqualification rule:1
Sec. 20. Disqualification by reason of interest or
relationship. — The following persons cannot testify as to
matters in which they are interested, directly or
indirectly, as herein enumerated:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife
without her consent; nor a wife for or against her
husband without his consent, except in a civil case by one
against the other or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other;
xxx xxx xxx
● The CFI overruled the objection. Hence, this action for certiorari and
prohibition.

ISSUE: WON rape committed by a husband against his daughter is a crime

committed against his wife, making it an exception to the marital disqualification
rule.

2
People v. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694, 704.
1
Now Rule 130, Sec. 22 of the Rules of Court. 3
Cargill v. State, 35 ALR 133.
031 People vs. Hon. Mariano Castañeda Jr. as Judge of CFI Pampanga and
Benjamin Manaloto G.R. No. L-46306 27 Feb. 1979
Facts:
♥ Victoria Manaloto, the wife of respondent Benjamin Manaloto filed a
complaint against the latter with CFI Pampanga for the crime of
Falsification of Public Document narrated in the Information:
♥ 19 May 1975- Benjamin Manaloto, with deliberate intent to commit
falsification, unlawfully and feloniously counterfeit, imitate and forge the
signature of his spouse Victoria Manaloto in a deed of sale executed by the
accused where he sold a house and lot belonging to the conjugal
partnership in favor of Ponciano Lacsamana making it appear that Victoria
Manaloto gave her consent when she did not.
♥ When the wife was called by the prosecution, the defense moved to
disqualify her invoking Sec. 20, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
(Take note: Case was decided on 1979. Provision is now under Rule 130
Sec. 22) which provides:
SEC. 20. Disqualification by reason of interest or relationship — The following
persons cannot testify as to matters in which they are interested, directly or
indirectly as herein enumerated.
(b) A husband cannot be examined for or at his wife without her consent; nor a wife
for or against her husband without his consent, except in a civil case by one against
the other or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other.
♥ The prosecution opposed the motion to disqualify contending that the
case falls under the exception to the rule that “it is a criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other.” Despite such, respondent
judge granted the motion disqualifying Victoria for testifying against her
husband. Victoria’s MFR-denied.
Issue:
W/N not the criminal case for Falsification of Public Document filed against private
respondent Benjamin F. Manaloto may be considered as a criminal case for a crime
committed by a husband against his wife and, therefore, an exception to the rule on
marital disqualification.
Ruling: Yes. The order disqualifying Victoria from testifying against her husband and
denial of MFR are set aside and respondent judge is ordered to proceed with the
trial of the case.
♥ The act complained in the criminal case is the forgery by the accused of his
wife’s signature making it appear that she consented to the sale of a house
and lot when in truth, she did not. Here, it is the accused’s breach of his
wife’s confidence which gave rise to the offense charged.
♥ The Court in Cargil v. State held:
The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the is too narrow;
and the rule that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting domestic within the
exception is too broad. The better rule is that, WHEN AN OFFENSE DIRECTLY
ATTACKS, OR DIRECTLY AND VITALLY IMPAIRS, THE CONJUGAL RELATION, IT
COMES WITHIN THE EXCEPTION to the statute that one shall not be a witness
against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed by one
against the other.
♥ The case above was the one used in ruling over the case of Ordoño v.
Daquigan regarding the crime of rape committed by a father to his
daughter which the court held was a crime committed by the husband
against the witness-wife. While th victim was not the wife but the
daughter, the Court still applied the exception because the said criminal
act positively undermined the connubial (relating to marriage or the
relationship between a married couple) relationship.
♥ In this case, the exception must be applied where the victim of the crime
and the person who stands to be directly prejudiced by the falsification is
not a third person but the wife herself. And it is undeniable that the act
complained of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal
relation. This is apparent not only in the act of the wife in personally
lodging her complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, but also in
her insistent efforts in connection with the instant petition, which seeks to
set aside the order that disqualified her from testifying against her
husband.
♥ Taken collectively, the actuations of the witness-wife show the fact that
the martial and domestic relations between her and the accused-husband
have become so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved
said nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed. In such a case,
"identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury
based on that Identity is nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the
security and confidence of private life which the law aims at protecting will
be nothing but Ideals which, through their absence, merely leave a void in
the unhappy home. Thus, there is no reason to apply the martial
disqualification rule.
♥ Finally, overriding considerations of public policy demand that the wife
should not be disqualified from testifying against her husband in the
instant case. For, as aptly observed by the Solicitor General, to espouse the
contrary view would spawn the dangerous precedent of a husband
committing as many falsifications against his wife as he could conjure,
seeking shelter in the anti-marital privilege as a license to injure and
prejudice her in secret — all with unabashed and complete impunity.
032 RAZON v. IAC against the temptation to give false testimony in regard to the transaction in
GR No. 74306 16 March 1992 question on the part of the surviving party." (Tongco v. VIanzon)
By Kylie Dado
The rule, however, delimits the prohibition it contemplates in that it is applicable to
Topic: Dead Man’s Statute a case against the administrator or its representative of an estate upon a claim
against the estate of the deceased person.
FACTS:
In the instant case, the testimony excluded by the appellate court is that of the
Vicente Chiudian, administrator of the estate of the late Juan Chiudan, filed a case petitioner to the effect that the late Juan Chuidian, the petitioner agreed in the
against the petitioner: lifetime of Juan Chuidian that the 1,500 shares of stock in E. Razon, Inc. are actually
1. To recover the 1,500 shares of stock in E. Razon, Inc. allegedly owned by owned by the defendant unless the deceased Juan Chuidian opted to pay the same
the late Juan Chiudian which never happened. The case was filed by the administrator of the estate of the
2. And prayed that petitioner be ordered to deliver the certificate of stocks late Juan Chuidian to recover shares of stock in E. Razon, Inc. allegedly owned by the
representing such shareholdings late Juan T. Chuidian.

Petitioner’s Answer/Testimony: [Case did not state how (or at what stage) the
testimony was given]
● All the shares of stock in the name of the stockholders in the record were
fully paid for by the petitioner
● (“THE TESTIMONY”) - Petitioner and the late Juan Chiudan agreed that the
1,500 shares of stock in E.Razon, Inc, are actually owned by the former,
unless Juan Chiudan opted to pay the same, which never happened.
TRIAL COURT: In favor of the petitioner.
IAC: Reversed Trial Court’s decision.
● Applying the dead man’s statue rule under Section 20(a), Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court, the “THE TESTIMONY” of the petitioner should be excluded.
● Declared Juan Chiudan as the owner.
It is clear, therefore, that the testimony of the petitioner is not within the prohibition
of the rule. The case was not filed against the administrator of the estate, nor was it
filed upon claims against the estate.
Furthermore, the records show that the private respondent never objected to the
testimony of the petitioner as regards the true nature of his transaction with the
late elder Chuidian. The petitioner's testimony was subject to cross-examination by
the private respondent's counsel. Hence, granting that the petitioner's testimony is
within the prohibition of Section 20(a), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the private
respondent is deemed to have waived the rule.

Petitioner’s Argument: Vicente Chiudan (administrator) did not object such

testimony, and he was subjected to a rigid cross-examination regarding such
testimony.

ISSUE: W/N “THE TESTIMONY” should be excluded [from the record]

SC: NO

The purpose of the dead man’s statue rule [Sec. 20(a), Rule 130] is that – “if persons
having a claim against the estate of the deceased or his properties were allowed to
testify as to the supposed statements made by him (deceased person), many would
be tempted to falsely impute statements to deceased persons as the latter can no
longer deny or refute them, thus unjustly subjecting their properties or rights to
false or unscrupulous claims or demands. The purpose of the law is to "guard