PEOPLE V ZZZ

PEOPLE v ZZZ
Facts:
The accused (ZZZ) was accused of raping her granddaughter, AAA, a 15-year-old minor.
ZZZ pleaded not guilty during his arraignment, initiating trial. The prosecution offered the testimonies of the
victim AAA, Dr. Lolinie Celestial B. Montojo (Dr. Montojo), Rosa Ravalo (Ravalo), and Barangay Captain Manuel
Lotec (Barangay Captain Lotec).
AAA testified that she lived together with ZZZ, who was her grandfather, while her mother and other siblings
lived separately.
The incident, according to AAA, happened sometime in December 2010, before Christmas. She had been
weeding grass near their house prior; it was when she went home, she recalled, that her grandfather raped her.
ZZZ placed himself on top of her and kissed her lips and genitals. Then, when he had already undressed her,
he turned her sideways and inserted his penis into her vagina. Finally, when the ordeal was over, AAA left the house,
went to the forest, and there slept. When AAA tried to come home the following day, ZZZ allegedly attacked her with
a bolo. She was allegedly able to parry ZZZ's attacks, allowing her to run and seek help from Lotec, the barangay
captain.
Although she could only recall the December 2010 incident, AAA testified that such incidents where ZZZ raped
her would often happen. She was not cross-examined by the defense.
For the defense, only ZZZ was presented as witness. He denied the accusation that he raped his
granddaughter, claiming that his advanced age has long made him incapable of having an erection.
RTC’s Decision
After trial, the RTC rendered a March 8, 2013 Decision finding ZZZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping
AAA.
The trial court found AAA's testimony credible and sufficiently corroborated by the medico-legal certificate
and the other witnesses' testimonies. It likewise appreciated Barangay Captain Lotec's testimony of having seen AAA
pale and trembling as corroborative proof that AAA was
telling the truth about her rape. It also noted that AAA's sworn statement was uncontroverted by the defense. To the
trial court, her positive testimony prevailed over ZZZ's defense of denial.
However, the trial court did not appreciate AAA's alleged minority as the prosecution failed to present proof
of her age at the time of her rape.
CA’s Decision
ZZZ appealed to the Court of Appeals. He questioned AAA's credibility, particularly because her account of
having parried his alleged hacking at her with a bolo, without sustaining any injury, was supposedly unbelievable.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings and declared ZZZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
rape.
The Court of Appeals found AAA's testimony credible and sufficiently corroborated by the other prosecution
witnesses' testimonies. According to it, AAA "positively identified [ZZZ] as her abuser [and] did not waver on the
material points of her testimony."
The Court of Appeals also found no merit in ZZZ's argument that sexual intercourse was impossible as his
advanced age allegedly rendered him impotent. Not only did it find no proof of his supposed impotence, but it also
held that "age is not a criterion taken alone in determining sexual interest and capability of middle-aged and older
people."
On the contrary, the Court of Appeals cited the medical report finding lacerations in AAA's hymen, which it
took together with AAA's positive identification of ZZZ as assailant as proof of the rape.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant
ZZZ for the crime of rape.
Ruling:
Yes. The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Regional Trial Court's
Decision holding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
While accused-appellant attempts to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, the settled
rule is that the trial court's determination of witness credibility will not be disturbed on appeal unless significant matters
have been overlooked.
Such determination is treated with respect, as the trial court has the opportunity to observe the witnesses'
demeanor during trial. Its findings assume even greater weight when they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Here, the Regional Trial Court found AAA's testimony credible and sufficiently corroborated.
Her straightforward and positive testimony that her grandfather raped her, Barangay Captain Lotec's
testimony stating that
she was "pale and trembling," the medical certificate indicating lacerations to her hymen, and accused-appellant's own
admission of the paternal relationship between him and the victim were collectively deemed sufficient for conviction.
For its part, the defense did not even cross-examine AAA to test her credibility.
In assessing AAA's credibility, the Court of Appeals held that "it is against human nature for a young girl to
fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of shame"— effectively reiterating an
outdated standard for assessing witness credibility.
More often than not, where the alleged victim survives to tell her story of sexual depredation, rape cases are
solely decided based on the credibility of the testimony of the private complainant. In doing
so, we have hinged on the impression that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been
sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. However this misconception,
particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at un unfair disadvantage, but created a travesty of justice.
This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitur. And while the factual setting back then would have been
appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be
stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We, should stay away from such mindset
and accept the realities of a woman's dynamic role in society today: she who has over the years transformed into a
strong and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights.
In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a private complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural
misconception. It is important to weed out these unnecessary notions because an accused may be convicted solely on
the testimony of the victim, provided of course, that the testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things. Thus, in order for us to affirm a conviction for rape, we must believe
beyond reasonable doubt the version of events narrated by the victim.
MRAA NOTES

PEOPLE V ZZZ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE V ZZZ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE V ZZZ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v ZZZ

You might also like