EVIDENCE 1

Relevance

People v. Galleno
July 2, 1998 | Per Curiam

Petitioner(s): People of the Philippines

Respondent(s): Joeral Gallano

Doctrine: There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the
determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court, which
must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday experience

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): long fingernail insertion
FACTS: Galleno was charged and convicted for the crime of Statutory Rape. He seeks reversal of the
judgment of the RTC, relying on the defense of denial. He alleges that the laceration in Evelyn’s vagina
was not caused by him forcibly inserting his penis into her vagina but instead by the long fingernail on his
finger accidentally getting inserted into Evelyn’s vagina when he was cajoling her by throwing her up and
down with his right hand holding the child and his left hand covering her vagina.

HELD: Gallano’s testimony was also wholly unreliable, and not credible. It is not in accord with human
experience. There is no explanation how Gallano’s finger penetrated Evelyn’s vagina by a depth of ¼ an
inch. Why would he hold the child's vagina if his only intention was to frolic and kid around with her? He
also failed to explain why, after injuring her, he left her in the company of an even younger child. He did
not even immediately inform her uncle and aunt what happened.

FACTS
● Evelyn Garganera, a 5-year old whose mother had to leave the province for work, was left in the
care of her uncle and aunt. Her neighbor, 19-year old Joeral Gallano, was left alone with Evelyn
one day. Though the evidence is conflicting, it was generally accepted that Evelyn sustained
lacerations on her vagina that day.
● The prosecution’s version:
○ Gallano took advantage of the situation by sexually molesting Evelyn. After lowering her
shorts, he made Evelyn sit on his lap, facing him. Then he forcibly inserted his penis into
her vagina, the pressure of which made her bleed. He unsuccessfully tried to stop the
bleeding with his finger. When her uncle and aunt returned, they tried asking her what
happened, to no avail. It was only upon seeing a doctor when they realized what
happened.
● The defense:
○ Gallano cajoled Evelyn by throwing her up and down, his right hand holding the child and
his left hand covering her vagina, in the process accidentally inserting his left ring finger
(which had a long fingernail) into her vagina, since she was not wearing any underwear.
Upon discovering the bleeding, Gallano immediately tried to apply madre de cacao
leaves, which stopped the bleeding.
○ Gallano’s father Raul testified that when he learned about his son’s arrest, he went to
Evelyn’s house and Evelyn told him a finger had been inserted in her vagina, but that her
uncle claimed Joeral had actually inserted his penis into her.
● The RTC did not accord any credence to the defense, ruling that its main theory was hinged on
Evelyn’s story about being penetrated by a penis being a mere concoction and distortion of the
facts by her guardian.
○ Moreover, Gallano failed to explain how his left finger came into contact with her vagina
while throwing her up and down, especially since the prosecution proved that Evelyn was
wearing shorts. Even if she wasn’t wearing anything, it is difficult to explain how the finger
could’ve penetrated as deep as it did.
○ The RTC concluded that Evelyn’s story about the finger, which she told the doctor, was a
result of her own confusion.
○ The fact that Raul offered to settle the case militiates against the defense’s claim.

Dizon | A2022
September 12, 2020
EVIDENCE 2
Relevance

ISSUES + HELD
ISSUE #1: W/N the RTC erred in giving full weight to testimony of the expert medical witnesses
presented by the prosecution even if they failed to conclusively prove the source of the laceration
-> NO
● The RTC did not solely rely on the doctor’s testimony as to the cause of the lacerations. It also
relied testimony of the other prosecution witnesses, especially the victim herself. Such expert
testimony merely aided the trial court in the exercise of its judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact
that the experts enumerated various possible causes of the victim's laceration does not mean that
the trial court's inference is wrong.
○ The absence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina does not negate the conclusion that it
was his penis which was inserted in the victim's vagina; the important consideration in
rape is not the emission, but the penetration.
● As regards the inconsistencies in Evelyn's declarations, particularly as to what really caused the
laceration, we are convinced that the child, due to her tender age, was just confused, especially
since the child may not yet quite know the difference between a finger and a penis.
● Gallano’s testimony was also wholly unreliable, and not credible. It is not in accord with human
experience. Evidence, to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness,
but it must be credible in itself.
● Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. [Sec 4, Rule 128] Relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic and human
experience
○ There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the
determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of
the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday
experience
● There is no explanation how Gallano’s finger penetrated Evelyn’s vagina by a depth of ¼ an inch.
Why would he hold the child's vagina if his only intention was to frolic and kid around with her? He
also failed to explain why, after injuring her, he left her in the company of an even younger child.
He did not even immediately inform her uncle and aunt what happened.
○ The fact that he said he gave Evelyn new shorts meant that she must still have been
bleeding when he left.
● The defense’s theory that Evelyn’s story was a mere concoction by her aunt and uncle deserves
little weight; the revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full
credence. Moreover, it is unnatural that her family, who support the story of rape, would use her
offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment and
even stigma

RULING: Conviction affirmed.

Dizon | A2022
September 12, 2020