RULE 130, Sec. 53.
Opinion of Ordinary witnesses.
PEOPLE v. CCC, G.R. No.
228822, June 19, 2019
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS: CCC was
charged with 4 informations on the crime of rape of his own daughter, AAA who
is 12 years old at the time of the incident. BBB, the mother of AAA testified
that AAA had a change of behavior, ran away from home, leaving behind a
handwritten letter. BBB identified the handwritten letter of AAA in open court
which AAA accuses her own father of being a "MANYAK" and that "7
Bises NIYA iYON GINAWA SA AKIN SIMULA NG NAMATAY SI LOLA." When BBB found
AAA, she confronted her daughter as to why she ran away from home. AAA revealed
that she had been raped by CCC 7 times, the first incident happening during the
wake of BBB's mother.
AAA was able to testify, however, for lack of material time, her testimony was
again suspended. There were multiple instances where BBB refused to sign the subpoena
because AAA or BBB were outside of the locality. Ultimately, AAA's testimony was expunged from
the records due to the lack of cross-examination.
RTC found
CCC guilty in all 4 counts of rape. The RTC found the testimony of BBB to be
reliable and credible (BBB's testimony was never challenged or questioned by
the defense). The testimony of BBB which was within her knowledge. Together
with the testimony of Dr. Dianco finding that the hymen of AAA to be no longer
intact which indicated possible penetration, and the undated letter of AAA
which was positively identified by BBB in open court, the RTC found the
evidence to be adequate and convincing to find CCC guilty. This was despite the
fact that the RTC did not rely on AAA's testimony, which was expunged from the
records due to the lack of cross-examination. RTC found that the failure of AAA
to appear in court to continue her testimony - despite the issuance of several
subpoenas - was because of lack of finances or poverty. CA affirmed the RTC. CA held that BBB was sufficiently familiar
with her own daughter's penmanship, and she was able to identify the letter in
open court. The letter clearly indicated that AAA was raped by her father even
if the word "rape" was not used. Accusing her own father of being a
"MANYAK" and "WALA KUNG KUWENT HIYANG AMA" clearly
indicates that she had been raped - "7 Bises NiYA iYON GINAWA SA Akin
SIMULA NG NAMATAY SI LOLA."
ISSUE: Whether or not BBB’s opinion
in AAA’s change in behavior and handwritten letter is admissible in evidence.
HELD: YES. Rule 130, Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary
witnesses. - The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may
be received in evidence regarding -
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
(b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person.
The letter was left by AAA when she ran away from home sometime after the alleged incidents, which began on the wake of BBB's mother as referred to by AAA in the letter. BBB herself testified that she noticed a change in behavior in AAA.
However, even is
the testimony of BBB on AAA’s change of behavior and handwritten letter is
admissible, it does not by itself prove the guilt of CCC. The handwritten
letter of AAA does not prove that CCC indeed raped his daughter. AAA never
explained what her father did to her. Characterizing her father as a
"manyak" does not automatically mean that he raped her, as it may
pertain to other acts which are lascivious that do not necessarily constitute
rape. CCC IS ACQUITTED.