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

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, 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 prosecution presented evidence, including the testimonies of the victim (through sign language), her 6 or 7-year-old sister Severa who witnessed the incident, and a medical certificate showing injuries and a ruptured hymen. The trial court convicted Sasota, sentencing him to 18 years of reclusion temporal, indemnification, acknowledgment of any offspring, and costs. Sasota appealed, arguing that the evidence did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the testimonies of the deaf-mute victim (Rufina Barbuco) and her young sister (Severa Barbuco) are competent and credible to sustain a conviction for rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

The Court held that the testimonies of the deaf-mute victim and the child witness were competent and credible. A deaf-mute is not an incompetent witness; their testimony, given through sign language or gestures understood by the court, is admissible. The trial judge properly ascertained the victim’s ability to communicate and understood her account of the rape, which was corroborated by her sister’s testimony and medical evidence.

Regarding the child witness, the Court reiterated that there is no fixed age for disqualification. The competency of a child witness rests on their intelligence and ability to perceive and relate the truth, a determination primarily left to the trial judge. The trial court found Severa’s testimony candid, innocent, and convincing, describing the events in detail, including seeing the appellant’s private parts.

The Supreme Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments. The evidence, taken together, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appealed judgment was affirmed with the modification that the accessory penalties provided by law be imposed.