GR 131799; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 131799-801; February 23, 2004
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. FELICIANO ULIT y TAMPOY, appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Feliciano Ulit, the uncle of the eleven-year-old complainant Lucelle Serrano, was charged with two counts of qualified rape and two counts of acts of lasciviousness. The Informations alleged that the crimes were committed in Makati City between November 1996 and March 1997, with the appellant using a knife, force, and intimidation. During trial, the complainant experienced severe psychological distress, refusing to answer questions and crying profusely in court. A psychiatric evaluation diagnosed her with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, noting intense fear and avoidance of recollecting the trauma. Subsequently, on direct examination, the prosecutor, instead of eliciting detailed testimony, simply had the complainant identify and affirm the contents of her sworn statement, which was then offered in evidence.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based primarily on the complainant’s sworn statement, which was adopted as her direct testimony, despite her failure to provide detailed in-court testimony due to psychological trauma.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The legal logic is anchored on the right of the accused to confront witnesses and the requirements for admissible testimony. While a witness’s sworn statement may be used to refresh memory or impeach credibility, it cannot substitute for the witness’s actual testimony on the witness stand, where the accused has the right to cross-examination. Here, the prosecution’s tactic of merely having the complainant affirm her sworn statement without testifying to the specific facts of the crime deprived the appellant of his constitutional right to cross-examine her on those facts. The sworn statement became hearsay, as its contents were not testified to in open court. The prosecution therefore did not present competent evidence to establish the elements of the crimes. The complainant’s traumatic state, while understandable, did not excuse the prosecution from its burden to present direct and categorical testimony proving the appellant’s criminal acts. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevailed.