Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v . LEONEL PASAOL PALAC ALIAS JOY-JOY TALAC, REY ARGENTILLO AND JOJO VILARDE, LEONEL PASAOL PALAC 553 SCRA 616 (2008)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v . LEONEL PASAOL PALAC ALIAS JOY-JOY TALAC, REY ARGENTILLO AND JOJO VILARDE, LEONEL PASAOL PALAC 553 SCRA 616 (2008)

Inconsistencies on matters that transpired prior to the actual commission of the crime and have no bearing to the elements of the crime charged are not treated as proof of a feigning witness but as hallmark of an unrehearsed testimony. Defendants Leonol Pasaol et al. were charged with three (3) counts of rape committed against AAA. Pasaol denied the charges. He claimed that during the incident, he was with AAA‘s uncle. The Regional Trial Court of Pasay City found Pasaol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape. His co-accused Vilarde and Argentillo remained at large. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Thus, Pasaol elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Pasaol is guilty of the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt

HELD:

The Court finds that no reversible error was committed by the appellate court which analyzed the evidence vis-a -vis the established facts of the cases in arriving at its decision affirming the conviction of Pasaol. If the testimony of the victim is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused in a rape case may be convicted solely on that basis. The assessment or evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of the victim’s testimony is given primordial consideration. The credibility given by the trial court to the rape victim is an important aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct and attitude during the direct and cross-examination by counsel. The court‘s independent scrutiny of the record confirms the trial court’s assessment of [AAA]’s credibility. Her declarations are indeed replete with details that bolster the truthfulness of her allegations. Pasaol‘s harping on the alleged inconsistencies committed by AAA does not persuade. Minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting details of a traumatic experience usually too painful and agonizing to recall. Besides, the courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of the testimony and the manner in which a witness answers questions. The appellate court’s following treatment of any inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony thus merits approval. A circumspect examination of the record shows that when confronted with the foregoing inconsistencies on cross-examination, AAA clarified that it was at 6:00 p.m., not 9:00 p.m., when she was offered a drink by Vilarde; and that it was not she but Vilarde who knocked at the door which appellant opened. In any event, inconsistencies on matters that transpired prior to the actual commission of the crime and have no bearing to the elements of the crime charged are not treated as proof of a feigning witness but as hallmark of an unrehearsed testimony. Such minor inconsistencies even guarantee truthfulness and candor and serve to strengthen rather than destroy AAA’s credibility. AAA’s delay in reporting the incident does not affect her credibility as well. The filing of complaints for rape months and even years after their commission may or may not dent the credibility of witness and of testimony, depending on the attending circumstances. In the present cases, the threats that the young AAA received from appellant and his co- accused were enough to cow and intimidate her. Moreover, as the appellate court noted, her experience when she confided her harrowing ordeal taught her that revealing it “could drive away people who may not understand what she had gone through.”