People v.

Salomon Y Olpango
G.R. No. 96848 | January 21, 1994
Cruz, J.:

Nature:
Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court

Facts:
1. While Sylvia Soria, a 20-year old mental retarde, was walking along the Maharlika
Highway at Casabahan, Gandara, Samar, Alejandro Salomon and Feliciano Conge, who
were apparently waiting for her, accosted her and forcibly took her to the ricefield some
ten meters away.
2. There she was raped by Salomon with Conge’s assistance
3. On her way home, she met her brother Senecio, to whom she related her ordeal. Later,
they reported her rape to their father. Subsequently. Restituto Soria signed a complaint
for the rape of his daughter by Salomon and Conge
4. Sylvia was medically examined by Dr. Susan Tanseco, who issued the following
certificate:
a. It provides that “… P.E. shows a single, linear laceration on the labia minora at
6:00 o’clock position. There are isolated erythematous areas on both thighs. There
is also the presence of sandy particles on the genital area. Speculum exam,
however, however, showed negative findings.”
5. Later, Salomon and Feliciano could no longer be found. It was only after a 4-month
search that they were arrested. Later, an information for rape was filed against them
6. The principal witness for the prosecution was Sylvia Soria herself, who recounted in
detail the manner of her ravishment. She mentioned that Salomon penetrated her and that
she could not cry out or repel the attach because the 2 were stronger and Conge was
holding a bolo.
7. Prosecution also presented Dr. Tanseco who affirmed her medical certificate and declared
that the laceration could have been caused by penetration of a blunt instrument such as an
average-sized penis.
8. The 2 accused denied the charge
a. Conge swore that on the night in question, Sylvia arrived at the highway and
loudly demanded a lamp from the people in Epifanio de Guzman’s house. He
approached her and said there was no lamp to spare, whereupon, as he turned his
back to leave, she hit him in the neck with a piece of wood, causing him to
stagger. In swift reaction, he caught Sylvia by the waist and pushed her to the
ground as she lay there exposed (she was not wearing any underwear), he angrily
shoved his five fingers into her vagina. In fear that her relatives might come, he
withdrew his hand and immediately left
b. Salomon corroborated his co-accused. He was in his house yard when he saw this
c. They both denied that they went into hiding
9. Lower Court
a. The judge found them guild
10. On appeal
 a. Defense suggests that the testimony of Sylvia Soria is flawed because she is an
insane person who was confined at the National Mental Hospital a few months
before the alleged incident
b. It is also argued that her testimony was fabricated at the instance of her father,
who had a bone to pick with Salomon’s father

Issue:
WON a mental retardate is disqualified from being a witness

Held (as to the topic of witnesses):

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

1. A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. As in the
case of other witnesses, acceptance of his testimony depends on its nature and credibility
or, otherwise put, the quality of his perceptions and the manner he can make them known
to the court. Thus, in People v. Gerones, the Court accepted the testimony of a rape
victim notwithstanding that she had the mentality of a nine or ten-year old “because she
was able to communicate her ordeal… clearly and consistently.” (note: Court cited
another rape case where they accepted the testimony of the victim despite the fact that
she was somewhat mentally deficient)
2. In the case: the trial court noted that although Sylvia’s speech was slurred and it was
necessary at times to ask her leading questions, “her testimony was positive clear, plain,
coherent and credible.” Her mental condition did not vitiate her credibility. The Court
also believe, as they have observed often enough in many cases that a woman will not
expose herself to the humiliation of a rape trail, with its attendant publicity and the
morbid curiosity it will arouse, unless she has been truly wronged and seeks atonement
for her abuse
Krohn v. CA
G.R. No. 108854 | June 14, 1994
Bellosillo, J.:

Nature:
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals

Facts:
1. Edgar Krohn, Jr. and Ma. Paz Fernandez were married
a. The union produced three children, Edgar Johannes, Karl Wilhelm and Alexandra
2. Their blessings notwithstanding, the relationship between the couple developed into a
stormy one
3. Ma. Paz underwent psychological testing purportedly in an effort to ease the marital
strain
a. The effort however proved futile
4. 2 years later, they finally separated
5. Later, Edgar was able to secure a copy of the confidential psychiatric report on Ma. Paz
prepared and signed by Drs. Cornelio Banaag, Jr., and Baltazar Reyes
a. Preseting the report among others, he obtained a decree (“Conclusion”) from the
Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale in Manila nullifying his church marriage
with Ma. Paz on the ground of “incapcitas assumendi onera conjugalia
(incapacity to assume the burden of marriage) due to lack of due discretion
existent at the time of the wedding and thereafter.”
b. Later, the decree was confirmed and pronounced “Final and Definite”
6. Subsequently, CFI issued an order granting the voluntary dissolution of the conjugal
partnership
7. Edgar then filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with Ma. Paz before the trial
court
a. He cited the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report which Ma. Paz merely
denied in her Answer as “either unfounded or irrelevant”
8. At the hearing, Edgar took the witness stand and tried to testify on the contents of the
Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report
a. This was objected to on the ground that it violated the rule on privileged
communication between physician and patiend
9. Ma. Paz filed a Manifestation expressing her “continuing objection” to any evidence, oral
or documentary, “that would thwart the physician-patient privileged communication
rule,” and thereafter submitted a Statement for the Record asserting among others that
“there is no factual or legal basis whatsoever for Edgar to claim “psychological
incapacity” to annul their marriage, such ground being completely false, fabricated and
merely an afterthought
10. Later, the Trial Court issued an Order admitting the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation
Report in evidence
a. CA affirms

Issue:
WON the evidence may be admitted
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirms the decision of the
CA.

1. The Court held that the requisites in order that the privilege (privileged communication)
may be successfully invoked: a) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; b) the person
against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics; c) such person acquired the information while he was attending to
the patient in his professional capacity; d) the information was necessary to enable him to
act in that capacity; and, e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would
blacken the reputation of the patient
2. In the case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized
to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the patient’s husband who
wishes to testify on a document executed by medical practitioners. Plainly and clearly,
this does not fall within the claimed prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered
a circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect
of the testimony of the physician who examined the patient and executed the report
3. Court adds that the counsel for petitioner indulged heavily in objecting to the testimony
of private respondent on the ground that it was privileged. In his Manifestation before the
trial court, he invoked the rule on privileged communications but never questioned the
testimony as hearsay. It was fatal mistake. For, in failing to object to the testimony on the
ground that it was hearsay, counsel waived his right to make such objection and,
consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted