G.R. No. 29564, October 25, 1928
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FIDEL SASOTA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, Fidel Sasota, was charged with the crime of rape committed on November 9, 1926, in Dasmariñas, Cavite, against Rufina Barbuco, a 14-year-old deaf-mute. The complaint alleged the aggravating circumstance of *morada* (dwelling). After a preliminary investigation, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance. The trial court convicted Sasota based on the testimonies of the victim, her younger sister Severa (aged 6 or 7), and medical evidence. The court sentenced him to 18 years of *reclusión temporal*, indemnification, acknowledgment of any offspring, and costs. Sasota appealed, contending that the lower court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the testimonies of the deaf-mute victim and her young sister are competent and sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the testimonies of the deaf-mute victim and her young sister were competent and credible.

1. Competency of a Deaf-Mute Witness: The Court rejected the contention that the testimony of the deaf-mute victim should be discredited. Citing *People vs. De Leon*, it held that a deaf-mute person is a competent witness. The victim’s testimony, given through conventional signs with the aid of an instructor from the Manila School for the Deaf, was found to be clear, graphic, and credible in demonstrating the assault.

2. Competency of a Child Witness: The Court also upheld the competency of the victim’s younger sister, Severa. The trial judge properly determined her capacity to testify based on her intelligence and understanding. Her testimony, given with candor and innocence, was found to be straightforward and credible. The Court cited *United States vs. Tan Teng*, which established that the competency of a child witness is primarily for the trial judge to determine, and there is no fixed age for disqualification.

3. Sufficiency of Evidence: The Supreme Court found that the evidencecomprising the consistent testimonies of the victim and her sister, corroborated by medical findings (a torn hymen and injuries to the vulva)was more than sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED with the modification that the accessory penalties provided by law were also imposed upon the defendant.