People vs. Guamos G.R. No.

109662 February 21, 1995 Facts: Rizaldy Guamos was found guilty of raping Michelle Dolorical, then a child eight (8) years of age. he trial court !ased its findings of rele"ant facts principally upon the testimony of Michelle Dolorical. Michelle declared in open court that, on #$ %eptem!er $&&', at around (:'' o)cloc* in the afternoon, while she was on her way from school to her grandfather)s house, she was accosted !y Guamos. Guamos dragged her to the poultry house of her grandfather. here in the poultry house, Guamos remo"ed her panty, and inserted his penis into her se+ organ. ,fter satisfying his carnal feelings, the accused Guamos warned her not to tell anyone a!out the incident, otherwise he would strangle her. wo (#) days later, while Michelle)s mother was collecting their clothes which needed to !e laundered, she disco"ered traces of !lood in Michelle)s underpants. %he as*ed her daughter a!out the traces of !lood and Michelle, after a while, admitted that she and !een se+ually assaulted. %he told her parents that it was -.o*s- who had se+ually a!used her. ,ppellant Guamos raises the defense of denial and ali!i. /e maintains that he had !een wor*ing at a construction site near the house of Michelle)s grandfather when the alleged rape was committed. ,fter he left his wor*site at around 0:'' p.m., he proceeded to play !as*et!all with his friends. %e"eral witnesses corro!orated his story. 1n appeal of the decision of the trial court, Guamos sought to discredit and e+clude the testimony of the rape "ictim upon the ground that she had not answered the 2uestions posed to her at cross3e+amination during trial (which were complicated to !e answered for adults more so for a & year old). Issue: 4hether the testimony of Michele should !e discredited Hel : 51. 6t is the right of e"ery party to cross3e+amine a witness 7with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his 8or her9 accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or !ias, or the re"erse, and to elicit all important facts !earing upon the issue.: 6t is also the duty of the witness to answer 2uestions put to him or her, su!;ect to certain e+ceptions.6n the instant case, defense counsel did not as* the <ourt to enforce his right and to compel the witness (Michelle) to perform her duty. ,s noted, the trial ;udge had instructed defense counsel to simplify his 2uestions. Defense counsel, for his part, neither complained a!out this directi"e nor complied with it. <ounsel for appellant see*s to ma*e much of the fact that Michelle Dolorical did not answer some of the 2uestions of defense counsel on cross3e+amination. his failure does not detract from the admissi!ility or credi!ility of Michelle=s testimony. >irstly, this appears to the <ourt to !e a case of failure of Michelle to answer some 2uestions rather than an o!stinate refusal to do so. 6n formulating those 2uestions on cross3e+amination, defense counsel o!"iously did not ta*e into account that he was cross3 e+amining a child of tender age (Michelle was appro+imately nine 8&9 years of age at the time she ga"e her testimony in open court) suscepti!le to confusion and pro!a!ly easily intimidated. 6t is clear, that defense counsel e+ercised no su!stantial effort to present intelligi!le 2uestions to complaining witness Michelle Dolorical designed to elicit straightforward answers. he <ourt considered that she, in all pro!a!ility, simply failed to grasp some of the 2uestions put to her on cross3e+aminations. he defense had made it "ery difficult if not practically impossi!le for her to answer those 2uestions intelligently and truthfully. he trial court found Michelle)s testimony to !e straightforward, credi!le and truthful. 4e find no reason to o"erturn that conclusion and to withhold credence from the testimony of Michelle. 4e note that, at her mother)s instance, Michelle underwent physical e+amination at the hands of a physician. he results of the medical e+amination conducted upon her are consistent with the charge that she had !een se+ually assaulted.

he defense of denial put up !y appellant Guamos pre"ail o"er the positi"e identification !y Michelle Dolorical of the appellant as the doer of the rape. <ourts ha"e always understanda!ly recei"ed the defense of denial with considera!le caution, !ecause such is inherently a wea* and unrelia!le defense, one too easily put forward. Much the same is true of appellant Guamos) defense of ali!i. 6t is only necessary to note that appellant Guamos did not, as he could not, allege that it was physically impossi!le for him to !e at the scene of the crime at around (:'' p.m. on #$ %eptem!er $&&', considering that the construction site where he had insisted he was wor*ing that afternoon was only appro+imately ten ($') meters away from the poultry house where, Michelle had testified, Guamos had inserted his male organ into her genitals. he corro!orating witnesses presented !y the defense were gangmates or -barkada- of Guamos and hence their testimony must !e recei"ed with caution. hose gangmates, it should !e stressed, merely testified that they saw him playing !as*et!all after 5:00 p.m. on 21 September 1990, which is patently inconclusi"e as to his innocence since the prosecution had shown that the rape had !een committed sometime around 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. that same afternoon. ,ppellant Guamos also asserts that the testimony of Michelle laying the se+ual assault upon her at his feet should not ha"e !een admitted !ecause her testimony had not !een su!;ected to cross3e+amination. 6n the first place, it is not true that Michelle Dolorical had not !een su!;ected to cross3e+amination. hat cross3e+amination is recorded in the following terms:
, ?. /@R5,5D@A (Defense <ounsel): B ?ou ha"e testified during the last hearing that on %eptem!er #$, $&&', at a!out 0:'' o)cloc* in the afternoon, a certain -.o*s- called for you, is that correctC , ?es, %ir. B Dut you will agree with me, Michelle, that in <asiguran, %orsogon, there are se"eral persons whom you *now !eing called -.o*s-, was it notC , ?es, sir. B ,nd now you further stated Michelle that this -.o*s-, this person whom you called -.o*s-, on %eptem!er #$, $&&' at a!out 0:E' in the afternoon ha"e called for you and after that he got hold of you and !rought you to the poultry house, was it notC , ?es, sir. B ,nd after that, as you ha"e testified !efore this honora!le <ourt, you said that -.o*s-, one of the -.o*s- whom you *now in <asiguran, ha"e *nelt . . . 6 withdraw that. ,fter the said -.o*s- one of the -.o*s- whom you *now in <asiguran, !rought you to the poultry house, he put up your s*irt and he *nelt down, was it notC , ?es, sir. B ,nd after that, you ha"e stated that he put out his penis, pulled down your panty and the same penis was allowed to touch your "agina, was it notC M6</@FF@ D1F1R6<,F: , ?es, %ir. B he said penis merely touched your "agina, was it notC (5o answer) , ?. /@R5,5D@A: ?our honor, we would li*e to ma*e it of record that the witness, the way we understand of her age, she is in grade two and grade two pupils somehow are smart, comparing children of today with those of yesterday. . . , ?. G,F6,% (.ri"ate .rosecutor): , reply, your honor. his child now is in Grade 666. he incident happened when she was in Grade 66. ,lthough it may!e true that children of today are articulate, it is a matter of ;udicial notice, that younger children are mee* and shy. <1GR : %uch that the girl is ha"ing a hard time to answer the 2uestion propounded !y the defense counsel. , ?. /@R5,5D@A: 4e will ;ust lea"e it to the sound discretion of the honora!le court. B Michelle, you want that .o*s !e incarceratedH in li*e manner, that if e"er the said accused, .o*s, did to you what you ha"e stated, this representation, more so, wants that the said .o*s !e incarcerated also. 6 am here not only as counsel for the defense, !ut as an officer of the court. 4e want ;ustice for you. he 2uestion now is, when the penis was put out !y the said .o*s, and he allowed it to touch your pri"ate part, what he did was merely to allow the said penis to touch your pri"ate part, was it not. (5o answer.) ,gain, your honor, we would li*e to put it on record that the witness ta*es a hard time to answer the 2uestion propounded !y this representation. , ?. G,F6,%: 5o answer from the witness. ,t this point, in time, considering the tenderness of her age, we mo"e that the 2uestion !e simplified and that counsel refrain from adding additional statements !ecause there is a tendency to confuse the child. <1GR 1 , ?. /@R5,5D@A: %implify your 2uestions. +++ +++ +++ , ?. /@R5,5D@A: 5ow the truth Michelle is what you ha"e stated during the last hearing was that, it was supplied to you specifically !y your mother and your grandfather that if you will !e as*ed (who committed) that act, you will ;ust point to a personC (5o answer.) , ?. /@R5,5D@A: ,gain, much to our regret, the witness is una!le to answer the 2uestion propounded !y this representation. 4e will ;ust lea"e it to the sound discretion of the /onora!le <ourt. 5o further 2uestions. 8 (@mphasis supplied)