ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 134846. November 28, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. DELANO MENDIOLA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 28 2000.

G.R. No. 134846 (People of the Philippines vs. Delano Mendiola.)

Accused-appellant moved for a reconsideration of his conviction to the supreme penalty of death for raping his five year old daughter, Darryl Mendiola. He asserted that the Court should also consider the testimony of the victim's younger sister, Macdo who testified that she saw their elder cousin Gene Babon as the one who committed the rape. In the light of Macdo's testimony which presented another possibility of the victim's defloration, accused-appellant argued that there is, therefore, reasonable doubt as to the accused-appellant's conviction. Accused-appellant also maintained that contrary to the Court's findings, Macdo did not actually admit that she was a coached witness. In the motion for reconsideration, counsel for the accused-appellant stated thus:

xxx we would like to invite the attention of this Honorable Court to the letter of the accused-appellant himself dated July 28, 1999 which was attached to the Reply Brief.

He said that the truth of the matter is that the first question asked "by the prosecutor on Delmar was 'M(a)cdo, mama mo ba ang nagsama sa iyo dito?' However, before the same witness could answer the question, the same prosecutor made a follow-up question, 'M(a)cdo, tinuruan ka lang ba ng iyong sasabihin dito?' Thus Delma Mendiola, the defense witness, answered 'P0, HINDI P0'." Based on that, the prosecutor eagerly manifested before the court a quo that the truth came out that Macdo was coached by her mother. However, the accused-appellant added that he could still vividly recall that when asked later on by the Honorable Presiding Judge, for three (3) times, if she was coached by her own mother what to say in court, his witness answered firmly in the negative.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its comment on the motion for reconsideration.

After carefully considering the motion for reconsideration and the comment of the OSG, the Court regrettably does not find any substantial arguments as to warrant a reversal of our decision. The ruling that Macdo was a coached witness is a finding that need not be disturbed. Accused-appellant's assertion that Macdo got confused in answering the questions of the prosecution as stated in his letter deserves scant consideration. We find this allegation as self-serving and is, in fact, belied by the records of the case. There is nothing in the transcript of stenographic notes that such exchange took place in court.

We maintain that the accused-appellant's version pointing at Gene as the person responsible for raping the victim cannot be given credence. Aside from the fact that this allegation was denied by the victim herself. Macdo testified on cross-examination that she did not actually see what Gene and Daryll were doing under the blanket. On the other hand, the victim stated in court that his father inserted his penis into her vagina many times in their house in Pasig City. As against this categorical statement of the victim, the accused-appellant's defense of denial must fail.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE