People of The Philippines vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz G.R. No. 135022 July 11, 2002 Davide, Jr. Doctrine

10. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
BIENVENIDO DELA CRUZ

G.R. No. 135022 July 11, 2002
DAVIDE, JR.
Doctrine:
It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading questions in conducting the
examination of a witness who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical condition;
uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated;
feeble-minded; of sluggish mental equipment; confused and agitated; terrified; timid or
embarrassed while on the stand; lacking in comprehension of questions asked or slow to
understand; deaf and dumb; or unable to speak or understand the English language or only
imperfectly familiar therewith.
Facts:
The trial court allowed the prosecution to put on the witness stand Dr. Cecilia Tuazon,
Medical Officer of the National Center for Mental Health. Dr. Tuazon testified that she
conducted a psychiatric examination on JONALYN on 12 July 1996. She found that JONALYN
was suffering from a moderate level of mental retardation and that although chronologically the
latter was already 20 years of age (at the time of the examination), she had the mental age of an
8½-year-old child. Dr. Tuazon also found that JONALYN could have attained a higher degree of
intelligence if not for the fact that she was unschooled and no proper motivation was employed
on her, and that she had the capacity to make her perception known to others. She, however,
observed that she had to "prompt" JONALYN most of the time to elicit information on the
sexual harassment incident. She then narrated that JONALYN was able to relate to her that she
(JONALYN) was approached by a tall man named Jun-Jun who led her to a house that
supposedly belonged to her cousin, and that Jun-Jun disrobed JONALYN and raped her twice.
The trial court issued an order allowing leading questions to be propounded to

JONALYN in accordance with Section 10(c), Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence. Thus,
JONALYN took the witness stand. She again identified her signature and that of her aunt on her
Sinumpaang Salaysay. She also identified BIENVENIDO as the person against whom she filed a
complaint for rape. She declared in open court that BIENVENIDO raped her twice inside the
house of a certain Mhel located at Barangay Gatbuca, Calumpit, Bulacan. She stated that
BIENVENIDO placed himself on top of her and inserted his private part into her womanhood
Bienvenido, assails the competency of JONALYN as signatory to the complaint she filed. He
adds that the defect in the complaint was not cured by his failure to interpose a motion to quash
nor by the assistance lent by JONALYN's aunt, which contravened Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code. Consequently, BIENVENIDO asserts that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try
the case.
BIENVENIDO also stresses the incompetency of JONALYN as a trial witness for the reason that
the prosecution failed to prove her competency. Further, JONALYN was merely asked to affirm
the legal and factual conclusions of the prosecution which evinced quite clearly the girl's lack of
comprehension of the court proceedings and the nature of her oath. Besides, her statements
concerning the alleged sexual penetration were elicited a month after her initial offer as a
witness, which reinforces the rehearsed and coached nature of her testimony.
Issue:
Whether the court is correct in allowing leading questions to be propounded to the
witness (Jonalyn)?
Ruling:
Yes. The trial court's conclusion that JONALYN's testimony should be taken and
understood from the point of view of an 8-year-old child. JONALYN's testimony is consistent
with the straightforward and innocent testimony of a child. Thus, the prosecution's persistent,
repetitious and painstaking effort in asking leading questions was necessary and indispensable in
the interest of justice to draw out from JONALYN's lips the basic details of the grave crime
committed against her by BIENVENIDO.
The trial court did not err in allowing leading questions to be propounded to JONALYN.
It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading questions in conducting the examination of a
witness who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical condition; uneducated; ignorant of, or
unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated; feeble-minded; of sluggish
mental equipment; confused and agitated; terrified; timid or embarrassed while on the stand;
lacking in comprehension of questions asked or slow to understand; deaf and dumb; or unable to
speak or understand the English language or only imperfectly familiar therewith.
The leading questions were neither conclusions of facts merely put into the mouth of
JONALYN nor prepared statements which she merely confirmed as true. The questions were
indeed carefully phrased and sometimes based on her Sinumpaang Salaysay to make JONALYN
understand the import of the questions. In the same vein, the prosecution's referral to
JONALYN's Sinumpaang Salaysay to refresh her memory was also reasonable. The purpose of
refreshing the recollection of a witness is to enable both the witness and her present testimony to
be put fairly and in their proper light before the court.
Thus, JONALYN's behavior merely conformed to Dr. Tuazon's clinical and expert
observation that JONALYN had to be "continuously and repetitiously prompted" so that she
could answer and recount a terrible experience. JONALYN's constant eyeball fixature towards
her aunt and mother does not by itself indicate coaching, in the face of a dearth of other
evidentiary bases that the latter did coach her. There was nothing in the behavior of JONALY
which was indicative of her failure to understand the import of the trial proceedings. Her
identification of BIENVENIDO as her assailant is quite telling on how simple, yet unassuming,
her grasp of the situation was.

People of The Philippines vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz G.R. No. 135022 July 11, 2002 Davide, Jr. Doctrine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz G.R. No. 135022 July 11, 2002 Davide, Jr. Doctrine

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 of The Philippines vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz G.R. No. 135022 July 11, 2002 Davide, Jr. Doctrine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

BIENVENIDO DELA CRUZ

The trial court issued an order allowing leading questions to be propounded to

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.