People v.

De la Cruz

184

GR No. 135022, July 11, 2002, Davide, Jr., CJ

Digested by Pat Law 126- Evidence
Jonalyn, who was suffering from mental retardation, charged accused with rape. During trial, TC
granted prosecutions motion to allow leading questions to be propounded to Jonalyn. When Jonalyn took
the witness stand, leading questions were propounded by prosecutor and the latter also referred to
Jonalyns Sinumpaang Salaysay to refresh Jonalyns memory. Accused questions the propriety of these
two acts. SC held both to be proper holding that (1)the propounding of leading questions was warranted
by the fact that Jonalyns testimony could be validly considered as that of a childs and (2) the purpose of
referral to the sworn statement is to enable both the witness and her present testimony to be put fairly and
in their proper light before the court.
Evidence: Referral by prosecutor to the sworn statement of victim & propriety of leading questions

FACTS
Jonalyn, with the assistance of her aunt, filed a complaint for rape against De la Cruz.
During trial, prosecution presented Dr. Tuazon who testified that she conducted a
psychiatric examination on Jonalyn and found that the latter was suffering from a
moderate level of mental retardation.
o That although chronologically she was already 20 y/o, she had the mental age of 8
y/o child.
o Dr. Tuazon also observed that she had to prompt Jonalyn most of the time to
elicit information on the sexual harassment incident.
TC issued an order allowing leading questions to be propounded to Jonalyn in accordance
with Section 10(c), Rule 132
Jonalyn took the witness stand and identified her signature and that of her aunt on her
Sinumpaang Salaysay.
o She also identified De la Cruz as the person against whom she filed a complaint
for rape. She declared in open court that the accused raped her twice.
TC convicted De la Cruz.
DE LA CRUZ argues that that TC erred in:
o Having considered the narration read to the complaining witness from prepared
statements and asked of her simply to confirm as true, as her own.
o Having given full credence and weight to complainants conclusions of fact
merely put to her mouth by leading questions of the prosecutor.
ISSUES & HOLDING
Whether the following are proper
(1) Propounding of leading questions to Jonalyn YES
(2) Prosecutions referral to Jonalyns Sinumpaang Salaysay- YES

RATIO
The propounding of leading questions was proper
TC was correct in concluding that Jonalyns testimony should be taken and understood
from the point of view of an 8 y/o child.
Her testimony is consistent with the straightforward and innocent testimony of a child.
Thus, the prosecutions persistent, repetitious and painstaking effort in asking leading
questions was necessary and indispensable in the interest of justice to draw out from
Jonalyns lips the basic details of the grave crime committed against her by De la Cruz.
It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading questions in conducting the
examination of a witness who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical condition;
uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced;
unsophisticated; feeble-minded; of sluggish mental equipment; confused and agitated;
terrified; timid or embarrassed while on the stand; lacking in comprehension of questions
asked or slow to understand; deaf and dumb; or unable to speak or understand the English
language or only imperfectly familiar therewith.
The leading questions were neither conclusions of facts merely put into the mouth of
Jonalyn nor prepared statements which she merely confirmed as true.
o The questions were indeed carefully phrased and sometimes based on her
Sinumpaang Salaysay to make Jonalyn understand the import of the questions.

Prosecutions referral to Jonalyns Sinumpaang Salaysay

to refresh her memory was also reasonable
The purpose of refreshing the recollection of a witness is to enable both the witness and
her present testimony to be put fairly and in their proper light before the court.
Jonalyns constant eyeball fixture towards her aunt and mother does not by itself indicate
coaching, in the face of a dearth of other evidentiary bases that the latter did coach her.
Other issues:
Court validly took cognizance of complaint filed by Jonalyn. Her complaint can be
rightfully considered filed by a minor which is allowed by the Rules.
The prosecution has proved Jonalyns competency by the testimony of Dr. Tuazon. The
finding of the TC that Jonalyn had the understanding of an 8 y/o child does not obviate
the fact of her competency. Its only effect was to consider her testimony from the POV of
a minor.
o Even a mental retardate is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness. A mental
retardate with the ability to make her perceptions known to others, is a competent
witness.
DISPOSITIVE
Affirmed. Petition dismissed.