G.R. No. 124676 May 20, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RESTITUTO MANHUYOD, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Restituto Manhuyod, Jr. was charged with the rape of his 17-year-old daughter, Rellane S. Manhuyod, allegedly committed on May 3, 1995. The complaint was initially filed by his wife, Yolanda Manhuyod, with the NBI. A medical examination of Rellane by Dr. Tomas Refe revealed findings consistent with sexual intercourse but showed old, healed hymenal lacerations. Rellane and Yolanda executed sworn statements detailing the rape. However, after the information was filed in court, Rellane and Yolanda executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance, stating the case arose from a family conflict already patched up, and moved to dismiss the case. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Subsequently, Rellane and Yolanda repeatedly failed to appear in court to testify, despite orders for their arrest. The prosecution thus rested its case solely on the testimonies of NBI agents (who identified the sworn statements) and the medico-legal officer, together with the documentary evidence. The defense objected to the admission of the sworn statements as hearsay. The trial court admitted them as exceptions to the hearsay rule, considering them part of the res gestae and the best evidence available since the affiants were unavailable. The defense filed a demurrer to evidence, which was denied. The accused then waived his right to present evidence. The trial court found the accused guilty of rape and, citing the aggravating circumstance of relationship, sentenced him to death. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on hearsay evidence, specifically the sworn statements of the complainant and her mother, which were admitted as part of the res gestae and as the best evidence, despite the affiants’ non-appearance and lack of cross-examination.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED the accused. The Court held that the conviction was based solely on hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible. The sworn statements (Exhibits “B” and “C”) were not admissible under the res gestae exception (Rule 130, Section 42). For a statement to be part of the res gestae, it must be made contemporaneously with the startling occurrence or immediately thereafter, while the declarant was under the stress of nervous excitement. The sworn statements were executed weeks after the alleged rape and were narrative accounts given in response to questioning, not spontaneous exclamations. They were therefore inadmissible hearsay. Furthermore, the rule that an affidavit is not the best evidence if the affiant is available cannot be inverted to mean that it becomes the best evidence if the affiant is unavailable; the unavailability of a witness does not make their prior out-of-court statements admissible. The prosecution failed to present any direct, competent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings alone were insufficient to prove rape, as they only indicated past sexual intercourse, not that it was forced or performed by the accused. The constitutional presumption of innocence was not overcome. Acquittal was compelled by law.