Dela Cruz vs. People, 985 SCRA 614, June 14, 2021
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogDela Cruz vs. People, 985 SCRA 614, June 14, 2021
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogDela Cruz vs.
People, 985 SCRA 614, June 14, 2021
Topic: Credibility of witness
Facts: On September 23, 2016, petitioner was charged with five (5) counts
of violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 before the RTC in five (5)
separate Informations.
AAA, a 13-year-old minor at the time of the incident, testified that petitioner
was her former teacher in x x x. Sometime in November 2015, petitioner
became her
boyfriend, until the latter broke up with her upon finding a new girlfriend,
also a student. As a teacher, AAA found him kind. He created a group chat on
Facebook, mostly for his female students, where he would occasionally strike
up a conversation with AAA. During these exchanges, AAA recalled him
saying, “Akin ka na lang, wala ka naman aasahan sa crush mo,” to which she
replied, “Oo na lang sir, hahaha.” Beginning January 2016, petitioner began
requesting her to stay after class. On January 26, 2016, petitioner reiterated
his request that she stay behind. Upon AAA’s refusal petitioner followed her,
suddenly kissing her on the lips while fondling her breasts. He also
suggested to have sex.
Surprised, AAA warned petitioner that if he would not stop, she would shout.
When petitioner relented, AAA immediately walked out. Afraid to receive a
failing grade, AAA chose to remain silent about the incident. On another
occasion, on April 20, 2016, petitioner repeated his attempts toward AAA,
kissing her lips and fondling her breasts. Such actions were repeated several
times, spanning to once or twice a week. AAA acquiesced to petitioner’s
sexual desires as she was afraid that if she refused, he would not give her a
passing grade in his subject. To her embarrassment, AAA later found out that
petitioner was bragging to his students about his indiscretions. Eventually, x
x x, one of his students and victims, told the school’s guidance counselor
about petitioner’s sexual advances towards his students. It was this instance
that compelled AAA to tell her mother her predicament.
For his side, x x x, as the school’s guidance counselor, shared that on August
18, 2016, AAA, BBB, CCC, and x x x together with their science teacher, x x
x, arrived at his office to report the sexual advances of petitioner towards his
students. Subsequent to directing them to formalize the complaints through
a written report, here presence of their parents for a conference. On August
19, 2016, x x x and the principal sat with petitioner and informed him of the
complaints of AAA, BBB, and CCC against him, all of which he vehemently
denied. Finally, on August 22, 2016, they referred the cases to the City Social
Welfare and Development Office, x x x thru Social Worker x x x.
The RTC convicted petitioner. In its ruling, the RTC lent credence to the
testimonies of the complainants, finding no ill motive on their part to concoct
such serious allegations against petitioner. It discounted petitioner’s defense
of denial as it failed to overcome the overwhelming evidence presented by
the prosecution, which proved his guilt beyond doubt. The court found that
all the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b)24 of R.A. No. 7610.
The CA affirmed the conviction of petitioner with modification. In affirming
the Decision, the CA accorded great weight to the facts and circumstances
found by the RTC in convicting petitioner. The alleged credibility issues
pointed out by petitioner is not the kind which discredits any of the
witnesses’ testimonies. In light of the positive and categorical identification
of petitioner as the perpetrator of the acts complained of, his defense of
denial crumbles and should be given scant consideration.
Issue: Whether or not the inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony
diminish its credibility.
Ruling: No, the inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony did not
diminish its credibility.
All the elements to sustain a conviction is obtained.
Records indicate that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the incident. The
courts a quo found the testimony of AAA to be straightforward, categorical,
and convincing when she testified that petitioner forcibly kissed her while
touching her breasts, tantamount to lascivious conduct as defined under the
law. It must be borne in mind that this Court has consistently given full
weight and credence to a child’s testimonies as youth and immaturity are
badges of truth and sincerity.
Equally significant, petitioner cannot take refuge in his insistence that the
private complainants’ credibility crumbles in the face of their inconsistent
testimony. Jurisprudence is clear that a witness’ testimony containing
inconsistences or discrepancies does not, by such fact alone, diminish its
credibility. In fact, the variance in minor details has the net effect of
bolstering instead of diminishing the witness’ credibility because they
discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony. Instead, what remains
paramount is the witness consistency in relating the principal elements of
the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the accused as
the perpetrator of the same.
It is an established rule, however, that denial is an inherently weak defense
and constitutes self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded
greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by credible
witnesses. Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can
scarcely overcome the unequivocal declarations by child victims regarding
the identity of the accused and his involvement in the crime attributed to
him. Here, the positive testimony of the private complainants, further
bolstered by the narrations of x x x and x x x, as the school’s guidance
counselor, outweighs the denial proffered by petitioner.
Petition is denied.
Doctrine: Equally significant, petitioner cannot take refuge in his insistence
that the private complainants’ credibility crumbles in the face of their
inconsistent testimony. Jurisprudence is clear that a witness’ testimony
containing inconsistences or discrepancies does not, by such fact alone,
diminish its credibility. In fact, the variance in minor details has the net effect
of bolstering instead of diminishing the witness’ credibility because they
discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony. Instead, what remains
paramount is the witness consistency in relating the principal elements of
the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the accused as
the perpetrator of the same.
