0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
9 tayangan2 halaman
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of John Montinola for raping his minor daughter on multiple occasions between 1999-2001. The Court found the daughter's testimony to be credible and consistent despite a minor inconsistency. It is expected for child witnesses recounting humiliating details of abuse to have minor lapses in memory. The Court also noted that rape can occur even with other people present, as the circumstances in this case did not prove rape could not have happened. Montinola's appeal was denied and his conviction was affirmed.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of John Montinola for raping his minor daughter on multiple occasions between 1999-2001. The Court found the daughter's testimony to be credible and consistent despite a minor inconsistency. It is expected for child witnesses recounting humiliating details of abuse to have minor lapses in memory. The Court also noted that rape can occur even with other people present, as the circumstances in this case did not prove rape could not have happened. Montinola's appeal was denied and his conviction was affirmed.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of John Montinola for raping his minor daughter on multiple occasions between 1999-2001. The Court found the daughter's testimony to be credible and consistent despite a minor inconsistency. It is expected for child witnesses recounting humiliating details of abuse to have minor lapses in memory. The Court also noted that rape can occur even with other people present, as the circumstances in this case did not prove rape could not have happened. Montinola's appeal was denied and his conviction was affirmed.
HELD: Facts: In the trial court’s decision accused JOHN In six information’s, The prosecution charged MONTINOLA is guilty of rape punished under Montinola with raping his minor daughter, AAA, Article 266(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as on 29 October 1999, 19 December 1999, amended by RA 8353 in relation to RA 7610; February 2000, March 2000, 4 November 2000, Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of and January 2001 (6 occassions). Attempted Rape and not as consummated rape; AAA was born on 12 October 1987. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of AAA attempted to report the 29 October 1999 Lasciviousness resulting to Child Abuse of a incident to her mother. Minor, who is over 12 years of age, as defined However, whenever she tried to tell her mother, and punished under Article 336 of the Revised Montinola interrupted her and told her mother Penal Code, as amended by RA 7610. that, "Kasi ginulpi ko 'yan, kaya 'yan ganyan. x x The trial court held that (1) AAA's testimony was x ginulpi ko 'yan dahil may ginawa 'yang categorical, straightforward, and consistent; kasalanan. (2) her failure to immediately report the In the first week of March 2001, AAA ran away incidents to her relatives or to the proper and went to her friends for help. authorities did not affect her credibility; She told them that she was being beaten at and (3) rape can be committed even in places home, but did not say anything about the sexual where there are other people. abuses. Court of Appeals held that: When asked why she did not tell her friends (1) AAA's testimony was candid, straightforward, about the incidents, AAA stated that, "Ano spontaneous, honest, sincere, and categorical; naman po ang magagawa nila at saka iniisip ko (2) the minor inconsistency in AAA's testimony po baka ipagsabi nila sa ibang kapitbahay did not affect her credibility; namin. (3) AAA's failure to immediately report the One of her friends' older sister, Cheche, incidents to her relatives or to the proper accompanied AAA to the Makati office of the authorities did not affect her credibility; Department of Social Welfare and Development and (4) rape can be committed even in places (DSWD). where there are other people. There, AAA talked to a social worker about Ruling: Montinola's physical and sexual abuses. The DSWD kept AAA in its custody for one week The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that then returned her to her parents after they AAA's testimony is not credible because it contains an explained to the DSWD that AAA was just being inconsistency. disciplined at home. Thereafter, AAA ran away again and went to her Montinola pointed out that, on direct examination, AAA friend's cousin's house in Pasay. stated that she was not sure whether Montinola was She went to Batangas with her friend's cousin's able to insert his penis in her vagina during the 28 aunt and did not return home for two weeks. March 2000, 29 March 2000, and 4 November 2000 She learned that her parents were looking for incidents. her when she saw a notice in the newspaper saying that she was missing. Then, on cross examination, she stated that Cheche referred AAA to one Atty. Crystal Tenorio Montinola was able to insert his penis during those for legal assistance. instances. On 26 March 2001, AAA went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where she The Court of Appeals held that this minor inconsistency executed affidavits. was expected and did not destroy AAA's credibility: Dr. Maria Salome Fernandez of the NBI examined AAA and found a healed hymenal [M]inor lapses should be expected when a person is laceration made to recall minor details of an experience so Issue: WON accused-appellant is guilty of rape and acts humiliating and so painful as rape. After all, the of lasciviousness? credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony.
Moreover, testimonies of child victims are given full
faith and credit.
Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an
accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated.
Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience
cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape.
In addition, rape victims, especially child victims, should
not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.
In the instant case, a minor inconsistency is expected
especially because (1) AAA was a child witness, (2) she was made to testify on painful and humiliating incidents, (3) she was sexually abused several times, and (4) she was made to recount details and events that happened several years before she testified.
There have been too many instances when rape was
committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side.
Rape is not rendered impossible simply because the
siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its commission.