PEOPLE V.

SATURNINO VILLANUEVA

G.R. NO. 181829 SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 DEL CASTILLO, J.

DOCTRINE:

Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that the Court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified.

In Mato v. CA, the Court ruled that evidence, although not formally offered in evidence, may
be admitted and considered by the trial court, provided the following requirements are
present: (1.) The same must have been duly identified by the testimony duly recorded; and
(2.) The same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.

FACTS:

Saturnino Villanueva was charged with 3 counts of qualified rape, committed against her
own daughter, AAA. On pre-trial, it was stipulated that AAA was below the age of 12 years
old when she was raped by Villanueva, and that the appellant in this case is the father of the
victim.

According to AAA, she was raped by her father thrice, two of it happened in 1999, and the
other happened in 2002. On the other hand, Saturnino Villanueva admitted that he was the
father of AAA but denied raping her, and that AAA filed a case against him because he
forbade him to entertain suitors.

The trial court found Saturnino Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
qualified rape. Villanueva appealed to the higher court, contending that the prosecution
failed to formally offer in evidence the medical certificate, as well as the birth certificate of
AAA. Hence, assuming that he is guilty, he can only be convicted of simple rape, and not
qualified rape.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contention of Villanueva that the documentary evidence should not be
admitted for failure to formally offer it in court.

RULING:

The appeal was partly meritorious.

The Supreme Court agreed with Villanueva that both medical and birth certificates, though
marked as evidence during pre-trial, should not have been considered by the trial court and
the Court of Appeals. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that the Court
shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified.

However, it must also be considered that the appellant may still be convicted without a
medical certificate. The testimony of the victim in rape cases may be the sole basis of the
accused’s conviction. Hence, Villanueva was convicted of simple rape.