People V Galleno

People v Galleno
Facts:
Joeral Galleno, accused, was found guilty by the RTC for the crime of statutory
rape against five year old Evelyn Obligar Garganera. According to the original
complaint filed, at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of August 16, 1994 at Brgy. Balighot,
Maayon, Capiz the accused, without permission of anyone, entered the house of the
victim and had carnal knowledge with her inflicting vaginal laceration causing
continuous bleeding and her admission of five days at the Roxas Memorial Hospital.
The accused presented denial as the defenses. According to the accused, he
cajoled the victim with the right hand holding the child and the left hand covering her
vagina, which accidentally slipped inside the victims’ vagina. The accused claimed
that he had long nails and the insertion caused the bleeding since the victim was not
wearing any underwear.
The medical doctors that testified as expert witnesses said that the vaginal laceration
could be caused by blunt foreign object, and that it could be a penis. There were no
spermatozoa found on the vagina of the victim, and according to Dr. Maria Lourdes
Laada, the first doctor who examined the child, the child said that it was the “finger of
the accused” that caused the laceration. The accuse’s father also claims that the victim
disclosed the same information to him.
The trial courted did not put credence in the version of the defense, pointing that their
version hinged on the argument that the victim’s statement as to how she sustained
her vaginal laceration was mere concoction and a plain distortion of facts by her
guardian and calls it a desperate attempt to becloud the charge of rape. Furthermore,
according to the defense witness, the vaginal laceration would be caused by a blunt
instrument and a fingernail is not a blunt but a sharp instrument. The accused was
sentenced with the death penalty. The case was escalated to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
WON the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the
medical doctors when the same failed to conclusively and sufficiently establish the
cause of the laceration in the offended party’s vagina.
WON the trial court erred in not declaring the warrantless arrest of the accused as
unjustified.
WON the trial court erred in interpreting the financial assistance extended by the
parents of the accused to the offended party as an implied admission of guilt.
WON the accused is guilty of statutory rape.
Ruling :
No, the trial court did not err in giving the weight and credence to the testimonies of
the medical doctors. As a general rule, witness must state facts and must not draw
conclusions or give opinions as it is the court’s duty to draw conclusions from the
evidence and form opinions upon the facts proven. However, conclusions and
opinions of expert witnesses are received in many cases, and are not confined to
expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special skill or
expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the subject matter under
observation, or for other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a
judgement.
In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at it’s conclusion not only with the aid of the
expert testimony of the doctore who gave their opinions as to the possible cause of the
victim’s laceration, but also the testimony of the prosecution witness, especially the
victim herself, hence not relying solely on the testimony of the expert witnesses. Such
testimony merely aided the trial court in the exercise of its judgement on the facts.
Hence, the facts that the experts enumerated various possible causes of the victim’s
laceration does not mean the trial court’s interference is wrong.
No, the trial court did not err not declaring the warrantless arrest as unjustified. It is
settled on jurisprudence that any objection involving the warrant of arrest or
procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed
waived. He is estopped from questioning any defect in the manner of his arrest if he
fails to move for the quashing of the information before the trial court or if he
voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea or by
participating in the trial. It does not appear in the record that the accused-appellant
raised this matter before entering his plea of “not guilty” to the charge, the issue was
not even touched during the trial.
No, the trial court did not err in it’s interpretation that the financial assistance
extended by the accused’s father is an attempt to settle the case. The father of the
accused accepted the payment’s of the victims niece when it was made clear that they
would push through with the charges, hence he found that the offer for settlement was
unavailing.
Yes, the accused is guilty of statutory rape. The absence of spermatozoa in the
victim’s vagina does not negate the conclusion that it was the accused penis that was
inserted in the victim’s vagina. In rape the important consideration is not the emission
of semen but the penetration of the female genetalia by the male organ. Verily, it is
entirely probable that climax on the part of the accused-appellant was not reached due
to the cried of pain of the victim and the profuse bleeding of her vagina.
As regards to the inconsistencies in Evelyn’s declaration , particularly as to what
really caused the laceration, the court is convinced that the child due to her tender age,
was just confused, as exemplified by Dr. Laada on her cross examination when she
said that the finger the victim was referring could be the finger in between the legs of
the accused.
Of vital consideration and importance too is the unreliability, if not outright
incredulity of the version of the accused-appellant which is not in accord with
ordinary human experience. There is no explanation how the left finger (allegedly
with long nails) of the accused penetrated the victim’s vagina by a depth of four
inches and why he was holding the victim’s vagina in the first place. He also failed to
explain why after injuring the victim, he left her in the company of an even younger
sibling.
As to the accuses-appellant’s argument that the victim’s testimony is just a concocted
story of what really happened, the Supreme Court apply the rule that the revelation of
a child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence. It is likewise consider that
her guardian supports her story , as it is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as
an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment and even
stigma.
Hence, the decision of the trial court is affirmed in toto.

People V Galleno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Galleno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Galleno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v Galleno

You might also like