PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WENCIL MEJIA Y SANTILLAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Decisions / Signed Resolutions July 8, 2013 TENTH DIVISION LANTION, J.A.C., J.:
Download PDF


LANTION, J.A.C., J.:


THE CASE

This is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated 8 July 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 261, (court a quo) finding Accused-Appellant Wencil Mejia y Santillan (Appellant) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Republic Act No. 7610[2], in Criminal Case No. 137424-PSG entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Wencil Mejia y Santillan.”

THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Appellant’s indictment stemmed from an Information[3] dated 13 February 2008, which reads:

xxx                                        xxx

On or about or prior to July 23, 2007 in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, out of hate, anger and resentment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously scolded/uttered (sic) the words “Ayaw ko ng makita ang pagmumuka mo” while pointing a finger to one AAA, 6 years old, a minor, as a result of which those words and action debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being.

Contrary to law.

xxx                                        xxx

When arraigned on 17 July 2008,[4] Appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded “not guilty” to the charge against him.

At the Pre-trial Conference on 5 December 2008, the Prosecution and the Defense stipulated on and admitted the following: a) the jurisdiction of the court a quo; b) the identity of the accused; and c) that private complainant is a minor.[5]

Trial ensued thereafter. The Prosecution presented five (5) witnesses, namely: 1) AAA, the victim; 2) BBB, AAA’s mother; 3) Susan Sabado, a clinical psychologist at the National Center for Mental Health who examined AAA; and, 4) Dr. Rico J. Caraos (Dr. Caraos), a resident physician of Ilocos Training and Regional Medical Center, San Fernando, La Union, who evaluated and treated AAA.

The Prosecution’s version as synthesized by the Office of the Solicitor General is as follows:

The case was filed against Appellant because of the abuses he committed against AAA. Appellant and AAA are neighbors at Barangay Bagong Ilog, Pasig City. On 28 July 2005, when AAA was only four (4) years old, Appellant, for no reason, suddenly poured cold water unto AAA while she was playing outside her house. Thereafter, in November of the same year, Appellant challenged AAA and her mother BBB into a fight, threatening them with a piece of wood. On 23 July 2007, when AAA was looking and calling for her brother at the stairs outside their house, Appellant suddenly pointed a finger at AAA and shouted “Umalis ka sa harapan ko, ayokong makita ang pagmumuka mo!” Because of the said incidents, AAA became fearful of Appellant and even had nightmares about him and the incident. These likewise affected her studies as AAA also got fearful of her male teacher, associating every big men with the Appellant. When AAA was brought to Clinical Psychologist Susan Sabado and Dr. Rico J. Caraos of the National Center for Mental Health, AAA was found suffering from emotional trauma, adjustment disorder and anxiety because of the Appellant. AAA was advised to undergo psychotherapy to help her recover from her trauma and to avoid her trauma from becoming an abnormality in the future.[6]

For its part, the Defense presented Appellant himself and one Marciana Marquines, Appellant’s neighbor and the mother in law of Appellant’s sibling.

The version of the Defense, as summarized by Appellant in his Brief reads:

“On July 23, 2007, accused Wencil Mejia (the Appellant) was cleaning his house located at No. 94 A. Flores Street, Bagong Ilog, Pasig City with his youngest daughter. After cleaning the house, Wencil went out for about three (3) seconds in order to open the gate valve of the faucet because he was about to take a bath. Thereafter, he went to buy candies for his grandchild, but BBB shouted at him saying: “Hoy! Ikaw, putang ina mo, anong ginawa mo sa anak ko, tutuluyan kita, pakukulong kita, gago ka.” He answered by saying that he did not do anything to AAA. Then his cousins and members of his family pacified him and brought him inside the house. (TSN, November 9, 2011, pp. 5-7; TSN, February 22, 2012, pp. 4-6.)

At around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon to 6:30 o’clock in the evening of July 23, 2007, Marciana Marqueses was resting in front of her house when he saw Wencil open the gate valve of the faucet and then went inside his house immediately after. After that, she did not see Wencil anymore until 8:00 o’clock in the evening when she saw him go down in order to buy candy. She saw BBB confronting and pointing her finger towards Wencil while the former was uttering derogatory words at the latter. (TSN, February 19, 2013, pp. 5-7)”

On 8 July 2013, the court a quo rendered the herein assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused WENCIL MEJIA y SANTILLAN is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Accordingly, the accused, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.[7]

Aggrieved, Appellant appealed the assailed Decision raising as lone error, viz:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[8]

THIS COURT’S RULING

Appellant assails the court a quo’s Decision, contending that the Prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal fails.

Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 provides:

SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s Development. –

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.


Corollary thereto, Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 defines the term “Child Abuse”, to wit:

Section 3. Definition of terms. –

x x x

(b) “Child Abuse” refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:

1) Psychological or physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment; (Emphasis supplied)

x x x


In establishing that AAA was psychologically and emotionally abused by the Appellant, the Prosecution presented AAA herself, who testified that she was thrice maltreated by the Appellant, to wit:

x x x
Q:
Do you recall where were you on July 23, 2007 at 5:00 to 6:00 o’clock in the evening?
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q:
Where were you then on that day?
A:
I was at the stairs [in front of the house], Sir.
x x x
Q:
What happened?
A:
Wencil was on the stairs and told me “umalis ka sa harapan ko, ayokong makita ang pagmumuka mo!”
Q:
And what else did Wencil do to you?
A:
“Dinuro-duro nya po ako.”
x x x
Q:
When was the first time that he did that to you?
A:
We were playing in front of his house when he poured us with cold water, Sir.
Q:
The second time, what were you doing then?
A:
He challenged me and my mother with a 2×2 piece of wood, Sir.[9]
x x x
On Cross Examination
Q:
When the accused, you said poured a cold water on you did you also report that to your aunt and your mother?
A:
Yes, ma’am.
Q:
Also, when he challenged you with 2×2 wood, you were with your mother.
A:
Yes, ma’m.
Q:
Did you report also that incident to the police?
A:
Yes, ma’am.
Q:
Did you also report those incidents in the barangay of your place?
A:
Yes, ma’am.[10]
x x x

Moreover, AAA testified that Appellant’s acts caused her to become fearful of men, even of her male teacher, adversely affecting her studies, and causing her to seek psychological treatment from Dr. Caraos, viz:

x x x
Q:
Now, after this Wencil did this to you, what did you feel after that?
A:
Natakot po ako.
Q:
Would you still play outside of your house?
A:
No, Sir.
Q:
Why is that, Ms. Witness?
A:
Because whenever I saw him, I feel afraid, Sir.
Q:
Has this affected your studies?
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q:
In what way, Ms. Witness?
A:
I became afraid of my teacher sir.
x x x
Q:
Now, Ms. Witness, did you go to the hospital because of this incident?
A:
Yes, Sir.
x x x
Q:
How long have you been going to Dr. Caraos?
A:
For a long time already, Sir.
x x x
Q:
Up to this day?
A:
Yes, Sir.[11]

We find AAA’s testimony to be honest and unrehearsed. Her narration of the incidents were clear, straightforward, and sincere, giving Us no reason to suspect the truthfulness of her testimony. AAA candidly identified Appellant and vividly depicted the latter’s acts which caused her to have psychological and emotional disorder and seek psychological intervention. It must be stressed that when the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[12] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[13] Thus, the court a quo correctly gave credit to AAA’s testimony.

Well settled is the rule that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under examination.[14] Its findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[15]

Furthermore, the psychological and emotional disorder caused by Appellant against AAA was further confirmed by the result of the psychological examination conducted by Dr. Caraos on AAA. We quote the pertinent portion of the said report, to wit:


Based on the aforementioned history, observations, mental status examinations and psychological test, she (AAA) was found to have ADJUSTED DISORDER WITH ANXIETY. The patient presented emotional and behavioral symptoms like fearfulness or nervousness, frequent clinging to her mother, nightmares related to the incident, and impaired sleep that developed within 3 months of the onset of the stressor. These symptoms were clinically significant as evidenced by a marked distress that is in excess of what would be expected from exposure to the stressor and significant impairment in social functioning.

In this regard, teaching the patient coping mechanisms would be of help in overcoming the psychological trauma she experienced. Likewise, emotional support, parental guidance and protection should be accorded to her.”[16]

x x x


As could be gleaned from the aforequoted report of Dr. Caraos, AAA indeed suffered psychological and emotional trauma because of Appellant. Clearly, the psychological examination conducted on AAA and the psychiatric report issued are veritable corroborative evidence, which strongly bolster the charge of child abuse against Appellant.

Appellant tries to rebut the overwhelming evidence of the Prosecution by interposing the defense of denial and alibi that he was just inside his house all day long during the alleged incident.

We are not convinced.


Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of lack of culpability.[17] It is merely a negative and self-serving allegation that cannot be given any weight on the scale of justice.[18] And although denial is a legitimate defense, mere bare assertions to this effect cannot overcome the positive, straightforward, unequivocal and categorical testimony of the victim, such as AAA.

While Appellant’s allegation was corroborated by one Marciana Marquines, the mother in law of Appellant’s sibling, who claimed that she did not ever see Appellant maltreat AAA, We cannot take Appellant’s alibi and Marciana Marquines’ negative testimony credible, as denial and negative testimonies cannot prevail over AAA’s positive, straightforward, unequivocal and categorical testimony. Besides, We cannot believe Marciana Marquines’ testimony as gospel truth, as she has an interest in the outcome of the case (acquittal of Appellant), being a relative by affinity of the Appellant. Considering the absence of any indication that AAA was moved by any improper motive to falsely accuse Appellant of the crime of “Child Abuse”, We concur with the court a quo that Appellant’s denial and alibi are insufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to his commission of the said crime.

All told, We find that the Prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proving the guilt of Appellant with moral certainty, thus, We are constrained to uphold his conviction.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 8 July 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 261, in Criminal Case No. 137424-PSG is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Veloso, V.S.E., (Chairperson) and Antonio-Valenzuela, N.G., JJ., concur.


[1] Penned by Florian Gregory D. Abalajon, Rollo, pp. 48-56.

[2] An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes.

[3] Rollo, p. 12.

[4] Rollo, p. 12, dated 30 April 2008.

[5] Records, p. 110.

[6] Rollo, pp. 70-71.

[7] Rollo, p. 56.

[8] Rollo, p. 41.

[9] TSN 19 May 2010, pp. 5-9.

[10] TSN 19 May 2010, pp. 17 to 19.

[11] TSN 19 May 2010, pp. 13-14.

[12] People v. Araojo, G.R. No. 185203, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 295, 307, citing Llave v. People, 522 Phil. 340 (2006) and People v. Guambor, 465 Phil. 671, 678 (2004).

[13] People v. Araojo, G.R. No. 185203, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 295, 307, citing Llave v. People, 522 Phil. 340 (2006) and People v. Guambor, 465 Phil. 671, 678 (2004).

[14] People vs. Bartolo, G.R. No. 140639, September 27, 2002

[15] People vs. Serado, G.R. No. 138664, August 6, 2002

[16] Records, p. 53.


More in Decisions / Signed Resolutions