Witnesses' Credibility

PROBLEM:

At the roadside fronting the house of A, he was shot by B. Then C grabbed the gun from B and also fired at A twice hitting him. W, the wife of A, testified that she was standing by the window of their house waiting for her husband. A was alongside the road also waiting for his son to bring in their cows. Thus, W says she clearly saw how her husband was shot by the accused B and C. Similarly, S, a 9-year old son was about that time bringing in their cows from the other side of river and was going to the side where his father was waiting. S also testified that he saw B shot his father. 

The defense questioned the credibility of the witnesses. First, why is the wife waiting for her husband to bring in their cows at that time when she should have been busy with their other children as it was supper time. Second, the inconsistency of S’ testimony was also questioned, that when he went out of the house, his father was already dead.  

ANSWER: 

Citing the case of People vs Salazar (GRN 84891, Apri17, 1993), one's credibility cannot be attacked simply by saying that he should not have acted the way he did. The court had held that people react differently to a situation. The innate differences in man make each one unique by himself. Man's actions and reactions cannot be stereotyped. Thus, W cannot be faulted if she chose to wait for her husband and son by the window rather than do other chores. There is nothing unnatural in such action that would militate against her credibility. 

As to S’ apparently contradictory statements that he saw the shooting of his father, with his other declaration, that when he went out that evening, his father was already dead, may have erred for he was only 9 years old. But the error is not fatal. We cannot expect a boy of tender age to understand every question asked of him in the course of his direct examination, much less, during his cross-examination. Ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses who much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court. 

Moreover, in the same case, citing People vs Nalan (GRN 86640, January 25, 1991), it has been held that the most honest witnesses may make mistakes sometimes but such honest lapses do not necessarily impair their credibility. 

It cannot also be questioned that the prosecution witnesses being relatives of the victim are biased witnesses. The fact that prosecution witnesses are the wife and son of the victim does not make them incompetent witnesses nor detract from the credit due them (People vs Cuyo, GRN 76211, April 30, 1991, 196 SCRA 447). Mere relationship to a party cannot militate against the credibility of witnesses or be taken as destructive of the witnesses' credibility (People v. Penones, GRN 71553, August 16, 1991, 200 SCRA 624). 

Practicum II Research Paper No. 2 submitted to Judge Iluminado Meneses onJanuary 30, 2009.

Some information about Rape

FACTS: 

            Maria, a 16-year old girl, bought lemon from the store 60 meters away from the house. On her way home, Pedro and Juan invited her to go to the waiting shed with them. She refused and they followed her to her house.

            She went to her room and the two men were able to enter her room by climbing up the window. She attempted to go out but they pulled her back. Juan undressed her and inserted his penis into her vagina while standing. She tried to push them away but she was easily overcome by the two men. The sexual assault lasted about one minute and one went home. Pedro took his turn and had sexual intercourse with her in the same standing position. The sexual assault lasted about three minutes.

            The accused, Pedro and Juan aver that the testimony of Maria is not credible considering that at the time she was raped, she never resisted her rapist nor call for help. They were not armed and she was not threatened. There was no showing of force or intimidation.

ISSUE:

             Is the absence of external injury negates the use of force? Does this mean that Maria consented and thus no crime of rape happened?

ANSWER:

             In a long line of cases, the court held that absence of external injuries does not negate rape, to wit: 

Absence of external injuries in the body of the rape victim is not essential to the conviction of her attackers. (People vs Davatos, 229 SCRA 647)

 

Rule is settled that absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. (People v. Querido, 229 SCRA 745).

 

Absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime (People v. Casipit, 232 SCRA 638).

 

Absence of external signs of injury does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, especially when the victim was so intimidated by the offender into submission. (People v. Bautista, 236 SCRA 102).

 

The Court has time and again held that the absence of any external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. (People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658).

 

Absence of external injuries, in fact, does not negate the use of force or intimidation. It bears stressing that the absence of struggle on the part of the rape victim does not necessarily negate the commission of the offense. Failure to shout for help or fight back cannot be equated to voluntary submission to the criminal intent of the accused. xxx Fear, in lieu of force or violence, is subjective. Addressed to the mind of the victim of rape, its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime. In addition, as the Court has repeatedly observed, people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from those who are confronted with a strange, startling or frightening experience. (People v. Lustre, 386 Phil. 390).

 Furthermore, Republic Act No. 8353 provides how the crime of rape is committed:

             Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. Rape is Committed –

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following:

a.       Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b.       When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c.       By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d.       When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. 

...xxx... 

Article 266-D. Presumptions. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A.

            Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the rape in any degree from the victim is admissible as evidence of lack of consent. Tenacious resistance, however, is not required. Neither is a determined and persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary. The lawmakers took note of the fact that rape victims cannot mount a physical struggle in cases where they were gripped by overpowering fear or subjugated by moral authority. Article 266-D tempered the case law requirement of physical struggle by the victim with the victim’s fear of the rapist or incapacity to give valid consent. Thus, the law now provides that resistance may be proved by any physical overt act in any degree from the offended party (People vs. Dulay, GRN 144344-68, July 23, 2002).

Practicum II Research Paper No. 3 submitted to Judge Iluminado Meneses on February 6, 2009.

Funeral Rights

FACTS and PROBLEM:      Juana, 25 years old, single and living with Pedro. Pedro is a 25 year old married man. Juana died during pregnancy in the residence of Pedro. Carlos, Juana’s brother, wanted to get the dead body of his sister. He contends that he is the legal custodial of the deceased body. Pedro refused to allow Carlos to get the body of Juana. Is the contention of Carlos tenable?

ANSWER:      The Civil Code of the Philippines under Title X, Article 305 provides that arrangements of funerals shall devolve on the brothers and sisters of the deceased in absence of other duty-bound liable, to wit:

Art 305. The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance with the order established for support, under Article 294. In case of descendants of the same degree, or of brothers and sisters, the oldest shall be preferred. In case of ascendants, the paternal shall have a better right.

       Therefore, Carlos as the legal custodian of Juana and being her brother has the right to claim the deceased body.

“Those who are duty-bound to make arrangements shall be in accordance with the order established for support. This order is now governed by Article 199 of the Family Code which repealed Article 294 of the Civil Code and which provides that such duty shall devolve first on the spouse; in his or her absence or incapacity, the descendants in the nearest degree; in the absence or incapacity of the latter, the ascendants in the nearest degree; and finally, in the absence of all the said persons, the brothers and sisters.”1 (Emphasis supplied)

Pedro is not related in any way to Juana except that the latter is the former’s paramour. Though they might have lived as husband and wife, their cohabitation is not a valid ground for him to claim a right to the body of Juana. If he is to contend such, it is not meritorious. The law is clear and legally speaking, Carlos’ rights cannot be questioned when it comes to his claim to perform his duties as brother of Juana.

---

1  Sta. Maria, Jr., Melecio. Persons and Family Relations Law. 4^th ed., 2004, p. 890.

NOTES: Submitted on my Legal Research Class, October 27, 2007