G.R. No. 142556 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JESUS PEREZ Y SEBUNGA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, accused Jesus Perez y Sabung (SIC) is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutore Rape, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code with the qualifying circumstance that the victim was only 6 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III, Republic Act 7610, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH. Jesus Perez is directed to pay to the private complainant the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as and by way of civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) as and by way of moral damages. Hence, this automatic review. In his brief, appellant raises the following lone assignment of error: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Appellant contends that his identification in open court by AAA was highly irregular. Appellant points out that the prosecutor had already identified him as the man wearing an orange t-shirt when the prosecutor asked AAA to identify her alleged rapist. Appellant stresses that when AAA identified him in open court, she referred to him as a man named Johnny and did not give any description or any identifying mark. Moreover, appellant claims he was alone in the cell when AAA identified him after the police arrested him. Appellant bewails that the identification was not done with the usual police line-up. Appellants contention is untenable. As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years [13] as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or suggestion. [14] Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips. [15] In the case at bar, the trial court was justified in allowing leading questions to AAA as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if not uncertain. [16] As explained in People v. Rodito Dagamos : [17] The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to the courts in exercising control over the questioning of a child witness. The reasons are spelled out in our Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on December 15, 2000, namely, (1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) to ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child, (3) to protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste of time. Leading questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed if the same will further the interests of justice. The Court has repeatedly stated that it is highly inconceivable for a child of tender age, inexperienced in the ways of the world, to fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo a medical examination of her private part, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish her familys honor and reputation, unless she wa