People v. Tulagan
G.R. No. 227363
March 12, 2019
FACTS:
RTC and
CA convicted Salvador Tulagan for the crime of statutory rape (Art. 266-A of
the RPC). During the trial, BBB, aunt of the victim AAA, testified that around
10:30 a.m. of October 17, 2011, she noticed a man looking at AAA outside their
house. When AAA asked her permission to go to the bathroom located outside
their house, the man suddenly went near AAA. Out of suspicion, BBB walked to
approach AAA. As BBB came close to AAA, the man left suddenly. After AAA
returned from the bathroom, BBB asked what the man was doing to her. AAA did
not reply. She then told AAA to get inside the house. She asked AAA to move her
panties down, and examined her genitalia. She noticed that her genitalia was
swollen. AAA then confessed to her about the wrong done to her by appellant
whom AAA referred to as Badong or Salvador Tulagan. AAA cried hard and embraced
BBB tightly. AAA asked BBB for her help and even told her that she wanted
Badong to be put in jail. AAA, nine (9) years old, testified that sometime in
September 2011 while she was peeling corn with her cousin who lived adjacent to
her grandmother's house, Tulagan approached her, spread her legs, and inserted
his finger into her private part. She said that it was painful, but Tulagan
just pretended as if he was just looking for something and went home. AAA,
likewise, testified that at around 11:00 a.m. of October 8, 2011, while she was
playing with her cousin in front of Tulagan's house, he brought her to his
house and told her to keep quiet. He told her to lie down on the floor, and
removed her short pants and panties. He also undressed himself, kissed AAA's
cheeks, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She claimed that it was painful
and that she cried because Tulagan held her hands and pinned them with his. She
did not tell anyone about the incident, until her aunt examined her private
part. Upon genital examination by Dr. Brenda Tumacder on AAA, she found a
healed laceration at 6 o'clock position in AAA's hymen, and a dilated or
enlarged vaginal opening. She said that it is not normal for a 9-year-old child
to have a dilated vaginal opening and laceration in the hymen. For the defense,
Tulagan claimed that he did not know AAA well, but admitted that he lived
barely five (5) meters away from AAA's grandmother's house where she lived. He
added that the whole month of September 2011, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., he
was gathering dried banana leaves to sell then take a rest after 1:00 p.m. at
their terrace, while his mother cut the banana leaves he gathered at the back
of their kitchen. He said that he never went to AAA's house and that he had not
seen AAA during the entire month of September 2011. Tulagan, likewise, claimed
that before the alleged incidents occurred, his mother had a misunderstanding
with AAA's grandmother, who later on started spreading rumors that he raped her
granddaughter.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC
HELD:
No.
Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of
the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry
great weight and respect and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn
the said findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter
the assailed decision or affect the result of the case. In this case, both the
RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony to be credible, straightforward and
unwavering when she testified that Tulagan forcibly inserted his finger in her
vagina. Jurisprudence tells us that a witness' testimony containing
inconsistencies or discrepancies does not, by such fact alone, diminish the
credibility of such testimony. In fact, the variance in minor details has the
net effect of bolstering instead of diminishing the witness' credibility
because they discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony. Instead, what
remains paramount is the witness' consistency in relating the principal
elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the accused
as the perpetrator of the same. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or
unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be
inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can
only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious.
No comments:
Post a Comment