177 People v.

Invencion
G.R. No. 131636 (2003)
C.J. Davide / Tita K
Subject Matter: Rule 130 - privileged comminucation; parental and filial privilege
Summary:
Invencion was charged with rape committed against his daughter, Cynthia. One of the witnesses of the prosecution was
Elven, Cynthia’s half-brother and Invencion’s son with his 2nd common-law wife, who was only 8 years old then. RTC
found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer the death penalty. Artemio assailed Elven’s testimony saying that he
should have been disqualified pursuant to the filial privilege under Section 20 (c) of Rule 130. The SC said that Elven’s
competency to testify is not affected by Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as the rule on filial
privilege.

Doctrines:
The rule on “filial privilege” is not strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is not incompetent or
disqualified to testify against an ascendant.

The rule refers to a privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or waived like other privileges.

In this case, Elven was not compelled to testify against his father, he chose to waive that filial privilege when he
voluntarily testified against Artemio. Elven declared that he was testifying as a witness against his father of his
own accord and only to tell the truth.

Parties:
Petitioner PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondent ARTEMIO S. INVENCION
FACTS:
 Artemio was charged before the RTC Tarlac with thirteen counts of rape in separate complaints, all dated 17 October
1996. The cases were consolidated and jointly tried.
 The prosecution presented the ff. witnesses: Elven Invencion, Eddie Sicat, Gloria Pagala, Dr. Rosario Fider, and Atty.
Florencio Canlas. Presented as rebuttal witnesses were Gloria Pagala and Celestino Navarro.

Elven’s testimony (see notes for other witnesses’ testimonies):

 Elven is an 8-year-old grade two pupil of Sapang Tagalog Elementary School in Tarlac.
 He testified that he is a half-brother of Cynthia and son of Artemio with his second common-law wife.
 Sometime before the end of the school year in 1996, while he was sleeping in one room with his father Artemio,
Cynthia, and two other younger brothers, he was awakened by Cynthias loud cries. Looking towards her, he saw his
father on top of Cynthia, doing a pumping motion. After about two minutes, his father put on his short pants.
 Artemio was a very strict and cruel father and a drunkard. He angrily prohibited Cynthia from entertaining any of her
suitors. Whenever he was drunk, he would maul Elven and quarrel with his (Artemio) stepfather, Celestino Navarro.

Defense:

 The defense did not present Artemio as a witness. His counsel de parte, Atty. Isabelo Salamida, took the witness stand
and testified for the defense. On 24 June 1997 (the same day when he testified before the court), between 10:45 and
11:00 a.m., he and his secretary went to the house of Artemio in Barangay Sapang Tagalog. The hut was made
of sawali. Its door was padlocked, and its windows were shut. When he went around the house and tried to peep through
the old sawali walls on the front and left and right sides of the hut, he could not see anything inside the room where
Artemio and his children used to sleep. Although it was then about noontime, it was dark inside. Atty. Salamida then
concluded that prosecution witness Eddie Sicat was not telling the truth when he declared having seen what Artemio did
to Cynthia when he peeped through a small opening in the sawali wall of the house in the early morning sometime on the
second week of March 1996.

Rebuttal witnesses:
 Gloria Pagala: The house where Artemio used to live was a small hut with some destroyed portions in its sawali walls.
When she went there to visit her children sometime in December 1995, there was a hole in front and at the sidewall of
the hut facing a vacant lot where people passed by to fish in a nearby brook. When she went to the place again sometime
in September 1996 after she was informed of Cynthias pregnancy, she noticed that the destroyed portions of the
huts sawali walls were not yet repaired.
 Celestino Navarro: He is the owner of the small house where Artemio and his children used to reside. At the time that
Artemio and his children, including Cynthia, were living in that house, the huts old sawali walls had some small holes in
them, thus confirming the testimony of Eddie Sicat. After Artemio was arrested on the basis of Cynthias complaint before
the NBI, Celestino made some repairs in the hut by, among other things, placing galvanized iron sheets to cover the holes
at the destroyed portions of the sawali walls. Thereafter, a person named Alvin occupied the house.

RTC
 RTC convicted him on one count of rape but acquitted for the 12 for lack of evidence.

Invencion’s argument: Elven, as his son, should have been disqualified as a witness against him under Section 20(c), Rule 130
of the Rules of Court. Besides, Elven’s testimony appears not to be his but what the prosecution wanted him to say, as the
questions asked were mostly leading questions. Moreover, Elven had ill-motive in testifying against him, as he (Artemio) was
cruel to him.

ISSUE: WON Elven is a competent witness. (YES)

HELD: Yes Elven is a competent witness.

Elven’s competency to testify is not affected by Sec. 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as the rule on filial
privilege.
 The rule on filial privilege is not strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is not incompetent or
disqualified to testify against an ascendant.
 The rule refers to a privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or waived like other privileges.
o In this case, Elven was not compelled to testify against his father; he chose to waive that filial privilege when
he voluntarily testified against Artemio. Elven declared that he was testifying as a witness against his father
of his own accord and only to tell the truth.

Neither can Artemio challenge the prosecutions act of propounding leading questions on Elven.
 Sec. 10(c) of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court expressly allows leading questions when the witness is a child of tender
years like Elven.
o Invencion’s insinuation of ill motive is too lame and flimsy.
o As observed by the OSG, Elven, who was of tender age, could not have subjected himself to the ordeal of a
public trial had he not been compelled by a motive other than to bring to justice the despoiler of his sister’s
virtue.
o There is no indication that Elven testified because of anger or any ill-motive against his father, nor is there
any showing that he was unduly pressured or influenced by his mother or by anyone to testify against his
father.
 The rule is that where there is no evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper
motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full credence.

Wherefore, the decision of the RTC is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that that accused Artemio Invencion is held guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of simple rape, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay the victim Cynthia Invencion the sums of P50,000 as indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
NOTES:

Other arguments of Invencion:

1. Artemio pointed to the following inconsistencies in their testimonies: (1) as to the time of the commission of the crime,
Elven testified having seen Artemio on top of his sister one night in March 1996, while Eddie Sicat testified having seen them
in the same position between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. in the second week of March 1996; (2) as to the residence of Cynthia in
1996, Gloria testified that the former was living with her in Guimba from November 1995 to September 1996, while Elven and
Eddie declared that she was in Sapang Tagalog in March 1996; and (3) as to the residence of Artemio, Jr., Gloria stated that he
was living with the appellant, but later she declared that he was living with her in Pura.

2. Since his house had no electricity and was dark even at daytime, it was impossible for Elven and Eddie to see him allegedly
doing pumping motion on top of Cynthia.

3. Celestino had an ax to grind against him (Artemio) because he had been badgering Celestino for his share of the lot where
the hut stands, which was owned by Artemios deceased mother.

4. Gloria wanted to get rid of Artemio because she was already cohabiting with another man.

Ruling:

Re: 1. Artemio pointed to the following inconsistencies in their testimonies.

 As to the time of rape: The exact time or date of the commission of rape is not an element of the crime. What is decisive
in a rape charge is that the commission of the rape by the accused has been sufficiently proved. Inconsistencies and
discrepancies as to minor matters irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal. In
this case, we believe that the crime of rape was, indeed, committed as testified to by Elven and Eddie.
 The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of both Elven and Gloria do not impair the credibility of these witnesses.
They are minor inconsistencies, which do not affect the credibility of the witnesses. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses that refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy the witnesses’ credibility. On the contrary, they may
even be considered badges of veracity or manifestations of truthfulness on the material points in the testimonies. What is
important is that the testimonies agree on essential facts and substantially corroborate a consistent and coherent whole.

Re: 2. Since his house had no electricity and was dark even at daytime, it was impossible for Elven and Eddie to see him
allegedly doing pumping motion on top of Cynthia.

 This was convincingly disputed by rebuttal witnesses’ testimonies. Also, according to the OSG, even if the hut was without
electricity, Elven could not have been mistaken in his identification of Artemio because he had known the latter for a long
time. Moreover, Elven was at the time only two meters away from Cynthia and Artemio. Even without sufficient
illumination, Elven, who was jostled out of his sleep by Cynthias loud cry, could observe the pumping motion made by his
father.

Re: 3. Celestino had an ax to grind against Invencion and 4. Gloria wanted to get rid of Invencion.

 Nothing in the records suggests any reason that would motivate Gloria to testify falsely against Artemio, who is the father
of her other children. No mother would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace, and trauma attendant to the
prosecution for rape if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the person responsible for her child’s
defilement incarcerated.
 Celestino testified that the lot where the hut stands is owned by his daughter Erlinda, and not by Artemios mother. At any
rate, even without Celestinos testimony, Artemios conviction would stand.

Other Witnesses testimonies:

 Eddie Sicat’s testimony: A 40-year-old farmer and neighbor of Artemio in Barangay Sapang Tagalog, Tarlac, Tarlac;
testified that on the second week of March 1996, between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m., while he was passing by the house of
Artemio on his way to the field to catch fish, he heard somebody crying. He then peeped through a small opening in the
 destroyed portion of the sawali wall of Artemios house. He saw Cynthia lying on her back and crying, while her father was
on top of her, doing a pumping motion. Eddie observed them for about fifteen seconds, and then he left and proceeded
to the field to catch fish. He reported what he had witnessed to Artemios stepfather, Celestino, later that morning.

 Gloria Pagala’s testimony: The mother of Cynthia and former common-law wife of Artemio, testified that she and Artemio
started living together in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, in February 1969. Out of their common-law relationship, they had six
children, one of whom was Cynthia. In March 1982, she and Artemio parted ways permanently. Later, Gloria and her
children lived in Pura, Tarlac. When Artemios mother died sometime in 1996, Cynthia lived with Artemio in a small one-
room dwelling owned by Celestino and located in Barangay Sapang Tagalog, Tarlac, Tarlac. On 30 August 1996, her son
Novelito told her that Cynthia was pregnant. Gloria then went to the house of Artemio and asked Cynthia about her
condition. The latter confessed that she had been sexually abused by her father. Gloria then went to the office of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Tarlac and reported what Artemio had done to their daughter Cynthia.

 Dr. Rosario Fider: From Tarlac Provincial Hospital; testified that she examined Cynthia on 16 September 1996. She found
Cynthia to be five to six months pregnant and to have incomplete, healed hymenal lacerations at 3, 5, 8 oclock positions,
which could have been caused by sexual intercourse or any foreign body inserted in her private part.

 Atty. Florencio Canlas: An NBI agent; testified that on 18 September 1996, Cynthia, accompanied by her mother,
complained before him and NBI Supervising Agent Rolando Vergara that she was raped by her father Artemio. She then
executed a written statement, which she subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Canlas.