People vs Turco (2000)
in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two
[Melo]
TOPIC Definition of Evidence
SUMMARY
DOCTRINE Distinction between admissibility of evidence
and the probative value
EVIDENCE Prosecution – 5 witnesses, mainly victim’s
testimony
Defense – 3 witnesses
I. FACTS
Accused-appellant Rodegelio Turco, Jr. was charged with the crime of
rape and found guilty by RTC Basilan.
Prosecution version – facts gathered from testimonies of:
1. Alejandra Tabada, mother of the victim;
2. PO3 Sanchez, the police who investigated the case;
3. Orlando Pioquinto, brother-in-law of the victim;
4. Escelea Tabada, the 13-year-old victim; and
5. Timorata, the medical record clerk who used to be the
medical officer under Dr. Sanggalang, the physician who
physically examined the victim after the incident
Escelea Tabada and appellant Rodegelio Turco were neighbors, with
the former staying with her father and deaf grandmother. In July 1995,
7pm, Escelea went home with her friend Cory who left upon reaching
Escelea’s house. She heard a call from outside. After Turco identified
himself to her, she opened the door (she knew him because they were
neighbors and are 2nd cousins). Appellant Turco, with the use of towel,
covered Escelea's face and brought her outside. They reached a
pigpen 12m away from the house, and there Turco forcibly took
advantage of her. Before leaving her there, he threatened to kill her if
she reports the incident.
After 10 days, she finally had the courage to tell Pioquinto who in turn
told Alejandro (Escelea’s father). Alejandro immediately brought
Escelea to a doctor for medical examination.
Defense Version – testimonies gathered from:
1. Leonora Cabase, neighbor of accused-appellant;
2. her granddaughter Corazon Macapili, and
3. Turco, accused-appellant himself
Turco denied the charges and claimed they were sweethearts, which
was also mentioned by Cabase in her direct testimony.
RTC: Guilty of the charge of rape, ruling that:
à The claim of voluntary love affair is an affirmative defense, the
allegation of a love affair needed proof. Nowhere in the record of the
case that the same was substantiated, though mentioned by Mrs.
Leonora Cabase. The accused and/or his witnesses must present any
token of the alleged relationship(love notes, mementos, picture, etc).
à Guiding principle of rape cases (People vs Abrecinoz):
1. an accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to
prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent,
to disprove it;
2.
persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
3. the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the evidence for the defense.
à The two are relatives, and in filipino culture, there is a duty of the
older relative to take care of the younger – “There is also no showing
that there was compelling motive why the case be filed against the
accused, except that the rape really happened.”
à Maria Clara Doctrine– “If it were not true that she was raped by the
accused, why would she expose herself to an embarrassment and
traumatic experience connected with the litigation of this rape case”
Turco defense before SC
1. His conviction is not supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt
considering that other than (a) the written statements of the
complainant before the Police and before MTC Clerk of Court, and
(b) her testimony during direct examination
2. he only presumed that it was accused who attacked her since she
admitted that upon opening the door, her face was covered with a
towel
3. nothing in her testimony clearly and convincingly shows she was
able to identify accused as the perpetrator
4. no actual proof was presented that the rape actually happened
considering that although a medical cert was presented, the
medico-legal officer who prepared the same was not presented in
court to explain the same.
II. ISSUE
WON Turco is guilty based on the testimonies provided by the
prosecution (yes he is)
III. RATIONALE
Escelea’s testimony showed credibility
Given the 3 guiding principles in the review of rape cases, the
primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of
rape is the credibility of complainant's testimony:
On cross-examination: Escelea displayed some apparent confusion
when the defense counsel asked her about the events that transpired
before the day of the incident - She testified that Totong also came in
the eveningto borrow a guitar, but during re-direct examination, she
said it was not evening, but 5:30 pm. She then later explained that the
borrowing of the guitar and the 7pm incident were separate incidents.
à 3 things can be taken from her testimony and answers:
complainant's youth, her apparent confusion concerning the events
that transpired, and her fear of both accused and her father.
Reasons why the court found the testimony (and the victim) credible:
1. Declarations on the witness stand of rape victims who are
young and immature deserve full credence
à Courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what
transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the
shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court à well-settled that a medical examination is not indispensable in the
trial if the matter about which they testified were not true prosecution of rape. The absence of medical findings by a medico-
2. The victim's relatively low level of intelligence explains the legal officer does not disprove the occurrence of rape
lapses in her testimony, having intermingled two incidents.
à Minor lapses in a witness' testimony should be expected when a IV. DISPOSITIVE
person recounts details of an experience so humiliating and so painful WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
to recall as rap MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Rodegelio Turco, Jr. a.k.a
3. She had no motive to falsely testify against accused- appellant. "Totong" is ordered to indemnify the offended party, Escelea Tabada,
in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos in addition to the
à no woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of sum of P50,000.00 already awarded by the trial court as moral
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter damages.
pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and
punished
4. Blood relationship between accused and the victim factors in
à Filipino culture, particularly in the provinces, looks at the extended
family as closely-knit and recognizes the obligation of an older relative
to protect and take care of a younger one. In the instant case, the
victim initiated the prosecution of her cousin. If the charge were not
true, it is indeed difficult to understand why the victim would charge her
own cousin as the malefactor.

Sweetheart theory of accused was self-serving

He failed to introduce love letters, gifts, and the like to attest to his
alleged amorous affair with the victim. Hence, the defense cannot just
present testimonial evidence in support of the theory that he and the
victim were sweethearts. Independent proof is necessary, such as
tokens, mementos, and photographs.

Presentation of the medico-legal officer not necessary

Defense argument: Jurisprudence provides that while the medcert
could be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule since entries in
official records (Section 44, Rule 130, ROC) constitute exceptions to
the hearsay evidence rule, since it involved an opinion of one who must
first be established as an expert witness, it could not be given weight
or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show
his qualifications
Court: We place emphasis on the distinction between
admissibility of evidence and the probative value thereof.
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or the rules (Sec3, Rule 128, ROC) or is
competent.
à Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and
competence, admissibility is, therefore, an affair of logic and law.
à the weight to be given to such evidence, once admitted, depends
on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and
the jurisprudence laid down by the Court.
While evidence may be admissible, it may be entitled to little or no
weight at all. Conversely, evidence which may have evidentiary weight
may be inadmissible because a special rule forbids its reception
In this case, prosecution did not rely solely on the medcert, and in fact
used the testimony of Escelea, which standing alone even without
medical examination, is sufficient to convict