People vs Umanito

LONG VERSION: It was around 9:00 o’clock in the evening of July 15, 1989, while on
her way to her grandmother’s home, when private complainant [AAA] was accosted
by a young male, UMANITO. UMANITO waited for her by the creek, with a knife
pointed at [AAA]’s left side of abdomen, he forced her to give in to his kisses, to his
holding her breasts and stomach, and to his pulling her by the arm to be dragged to
the Home Economics Building inside the premises of the Daramuangan Elementary
School where UMANITO first undressed her [AAA] and himself with his right hand
while he still clutched the knife menacingly on his left hand. She [AAA] could not
shout because she was afraid. UMANITO laid her down on a bench, set the knife
down, then mounted her, inserting his penis into her [AAA’s] vagina and shortly
thereafter, accused-appellant UMANITO dressed up and threatened [AAA] while
poking the knife at her neck, not to report the incident to the police or else he said
he would kill her. UMANITO then left, while the victim [AAA] went on to her
grandmother’s house and she noticed that it was already around 1:00 o’clock in the
morning when she reached there.

In January 1990, 6 months after the incident, private complainant [AAA’s] mother,
[BBB], noticed the prominence on [AAA]’s stomach. It was only then when the
victim, private complainant [AAA], divulged to her mother the alleged rape and told
her the details of what had happened in July 1989. After hearing private
complainant [AAA]’s story, her mother brought her to the police station.

Appellant’s version on the stand was different. Denying the accusations of AAA, he
claimed that on 15 July 1989, he was home the whole day, helping his family
complete rush work on picture frames ordered from Baguio. He did not step out of
their house on the evening in question, he added. Concerning his relationship with
AAA, appellant admitted that he had courted her but she spurned him. He
conjectured, though, that AAA had a crush on him since she frequently visited him at
his house.

SHORT VERSION: RTC found Umanito guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape.
AAA, the victim got pregnant.

ISSUE: Whether or not Umanito is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD: Once again, this Court is called upon to determine whether the prosecution
has successfully met the level of proof needed to find appellant guilty of the crime of
rape.

Among the many incongruent assertions of the prosecution and the defense, the
disharmony on a certain point stands out. Appellant, on one hand, testified that
although he had courted AAA, they were not sweethearts. Therefore, this testimony
largely discounts the possibility of consensual coitus between him and AAA. On the
other, AAA made contradictory allegations at the preliminary investigation and on
the witness stand with respect to the nature of her relationship with appellant. First,
she claimed that she met appellant only on the day of the purported rape; later, she
stated that they were actually friends; and still later, she admitted that they were
close. (Malandi pala si AAA).

Amidst the slew of assertions and counter-assertions, a happenstance may provide the
definitive key to the absolution of the appellant. This is the fact that AAA bore a child
as a result of the purported rape. With the advance in genetics and the
availability of new technology, it can now be determined with reasonable
certainty whether appellant is the father of AAA’s child. If he is not, his
acquittal may be ordained. We have pronounced that if it can be conclusively
determined that the accused did not sire the alleged victim’s child, this may
cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on this basis. If he
is found not to be the father, the finding will at least weigh heavily in the
ultimate decision in this case. Thus, we are directing appellant, AAA and AAA’s
child to submit themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing under the aegis
of the New Rule on DNA Evidence (the Rules), which took effect on 15 October 2007,
subject to guidelines prescribed herein.

For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both

inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in determining a more
accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the
guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper
administration of justice in every case.

It is obvious to the Court that the determination of whether appellant is the father of
AAA’s child, which may be accomplished through DNA testing, is material to the fair
and correct adjudication of the instant appeal. Under Section 4 of the Rules, the
courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a
DNA testing. However, while this Court retains jurisdiction over the case at
bar, capacitated as it is to receive and act on the matter in controversy, the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not, in the course of daily
routine, conduct hearings. Hence, it would be more appropriate that the case
be remanded to the RTC for reception of evidence in appropriate hearings,
with due notice to the parties.

Should the RTC find the DNA testing feasible in the case at bar (Sec 4), it shall
order the same, in conformity with Section 5 of the Rules. It is also the RTC
which shall determine the institution to undertake the DNA testing and the
parties are free to manifest their comments on the choice of DNA testing
center.

After the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon the parties who
wish to avail of the same to offer the results in accordance with the rules of
evidence. The RTC, in evaluating the DNA results upon presentation, shall
assess the same as evidence in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC shall consider,
among other things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how
they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards
and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of
the analyst who conducted the tests.

WHEREFORE, the instant case is remanded to the RTC for reception of DNA
evidence in accordance with the terms of this Resolution.