16. People of the Philippines v.
Tundag Held:
G.R. No. 135695-96 | October 12, 2000
Petition: Automatic Review of a case involving the Penalty of
death
Facts:
Private Complainant Mary Anne Tundag, the thirteen year old
daughter of the accused, filed two separate complaints for
incestuous rape against her father, Tomas Tundag. Upon
arraignment, Tundag pleaded Not Guilty to the charges. The
cases were thereafter consolidated, and a joint trial ensued.
Tomas’ defense was a bare denial of the charges, claiming that
the alleged incidents of rape were merely fabricated by his
daughter due to a dispute about the latter having had been
reprimanded by Tomas for excessively going out whenever he
was not home. The accused presented no witnesses. The RTC
ruled in favor of Mary Anne, giving weight to the honesty of her
testimony, finding that an illiterate girl of her stature was not
likely to lie about the situation.
Mary Anne’s testimony recounted the two separate occasions
wherein she was violated, recounting the threats that met her
protests. After the second instance, she left her home and went
to a neighbor’s place, where she recounted the happenings. Her
neighbor, one Bebie Cabahug, advised her to report the matter to
the police. She took the suggestion and went to the Southern
Islands Hospital where she was examined, after which she
returned to the police for further questioning.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the trial court committed an error in not
absolving Tomas despite the presence of reasonable
doubt to exculpate him of the same.
1. No, the trial court did not err.
Tomas’ defense of alibi, wherein he claimed that he had come
home from work too exhausted to have been up to anything, is
negative and self-serving. Denial is an inherently weak defense,
which becomes even weaker in the face of the positive
identification by the victim of the appellant as the violator of her
honor. Furthermore, Mary Anne’s testimony was corroborated
by medical findings from an examination done by one Dr. Bessie
Acebes on her. Tomas’ contention that his daughter pressed
raped charges against him due to the quarrel between them is
untenable. Such allegations fail to explain the charges away.
However, Mary Anne’s age was not properly and sufficiently
proven. She testified that she was thirteen years old at the time
of the rapes. She admitted that she did not know exactly when
she was born because her mother did not tell her. She further
said that her birth certificate was likewise with her mother.
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges
may properly take and act on without proof because they already
know them. The court has taken judicial notice of not just the fact
that rape may occur even in places where people congregate, as
well as the so-called ‘inbred modesty’ of Filipinas.
Judicial notice of the age of the victim, however, is improper. As
required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such
as age, a hearing is required before courts can take judicial notice
of such fact. Generally, the age of the victim may be proven by the
birth or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the absence
thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or
destroyed, by other documentary or oral evidence sufficient for
the purpose. RTC’s judgment is modified to two counts of simple
rape.