G.R. No. 135405 ; November 29, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JHONNETTEL MAYORGA y LUMAGUE alias Puroy, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that on June 24, 1995, in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, five-year-old Leney Linayao was playing by the seashore when accused-appellant Jhonnettel Mayorga alias “Puroy” approached her. He asked her to buy gin, then brought her to a marshy area where he boxed her, wrung her neck until she fainted, and raped her. Upon regaining consciousness, the bleeding and muddied child walked home and was assisted by concerned citizens who brought her to a doctor. Her grandmother, Alfonsa Magculang, joined a search party and was informed by Puroy’s cousin, Edwin Lumague, that Puroy had confessed to raping and leaving Leney for dead. Puroy was subsequently arrested. Medical examination revealed complete hymenal lacerations and other injuries consistent with sexual assault.
At trial, the defense presented Puroy as its sole witness, who claimed he was drunk and unconscious (“patay lasing”) at the time of the incident, thereby raising an alibi. He also alleged that Edwin’s testimony was coerced. The defense further attempted to discredit Leney’s testimony by suggesting she was coached by her grandmother, citing portions of her cross-examination where she answered affirmatively to leading questions about being told what to say in court. The trial court convicted Puroy of statutory rape and imposed the death penalty, necessitating automatic review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of statutory rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the challenges to the credibility of the child victim’s testimony and the admissibility of the alleged confession relayed by his cousin.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the child victim’s credibility. It ruled that a child witness’s testimony is given full weight and credit, especially when the crime involves a sexual assault. The fact that a young victim may have been coached on how to narrate her ordeal in court does not automatically invalidate her testimony; it is natural for a guardian to prepare a child for the traumatic experience of a trial. The substance of Leney’s testimony remained consistent, candid, and corroborated by medical findings. The Court found her account of the violent assault and rape to be spontaneous and credible.
Regarding the alleged extrajudicial confession relayed by Edwin Lumague, the Court clarified it was not admitted as proof of the truth of the confession itself, which would be hearsay, but as an admission by a party (Puroy) through his agent (Edwin). The testimony was presented to show that Puroy made the statement to Edwin, which constituted an adoptive admission of guilt. This fell under the exception to the hearsay rule for admissions by a party. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being inherently weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The positive identification by the victim, who knew Puroy as a neighbor, prevailed. The Court thus found all elements of statutory rape present and affirmed the conviction.