The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Eduardo Golidan and Francis Nacionales for rape with homicide, murder, and frustrated murder, emphasizing that a child with cerebral palsy can be a competent witness if they can perceive and communicate their perceptions truthfully. This ruling reinforces the principle that disabilities do not automatically disqualify a witness and underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring justice for vulnerable victims. It highlights the importance of assessing individual capacity rather than relying on generalizations about disabilities.

Justice Through a Child’s Eyes: Can Cerebral Palsy Obscure the Truth?

In a harrowing case, Eduardo Golidan and Francis Nacionales were convicted of heinous crimes based, in part, on the testimony of Cherry Mae Bantiway, a child with cerebral palsy. The defense challenged her competency, raising the question: Can a person with cerebral palsy accurately perceive and truthfully relay events, making them a credible witness in court? The Supreme Court, in People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Golidan y Coto-ong, Francis Nacionales y Fernandez, and Teddy Ogsila y Tahil, addressed this critical issue, ultimately affirming the lower courts’ decisions. This case serves as a landmark example of how the justice system grapples with the complexities of witness competency and the rights of vulnerable victims.

The case stemmed from a brutal attack on January 20, 1995, in Baguio City. AAA, a babysitter, was raped and murdered; Namuel Aniban, a one-year-old boy, was murdered; and Cherry Mae Bantiway, then ten years old, suffered severe injuries. The prosecution presented Cherry Mae as a key witness, and despite her cerebral palsy, she identified Golidan, Nacionales, and Ogsila as the perpetrators. This identification became a focal point of the trial, with the defense arguing that Cherry Mae’s condition impaired her ability to accurately perceive and recall the events.

The legal framework for determining witness competency is rooted in the Rules of Court. Section 20, Rule 130 states:

All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

This rule establishes a baseline for competency: the ability to perceive and communicate. The defense argued that Cherry Mae did not meet this standard due to her cerebral palsy. However, the prosecution presented expert testimony from Dr. Divina Hernandez, a neurologist, who testified that while Cherry Mae’s motor skills were impaired, her cognitive abilities and capacity to recall events remained intact. This testimony was crucial in establishing Cherry Mae’s competency.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the trial court’s role in assessing witness competency. The trial judge had the opportunity to observe Cherry Mae firsthand, assess her demeanor, and evaluate the credibility of her testimony. The Court noted that:

[T]he trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of a witness is accorded the highest respect because of its direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and to determine if they are telling the truth or not. This opportunity enables the trial judge to detect better that thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Building on this principle, the Court deferred to the trial court’s assessment, finding no clear error in its determination that Cherry Mae was a competent witness. This highlights the deference appellate courts give to trial courts in matters of witness credibility.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the defense’s argument that Cherry Mae’s initial failure to identify the accused cast doubt on her credibility. The Court acknowledged that Cherry Mae did not immediately identify the appellants but explained that her condition immediately following the traumatic events and that her existing condition with cerebral palsy was aggravated by the head injuries sustained in the attack and the state of shock and fear she experienced were sufficient to explain the delay in identification. This underscores the importance of considering the totality of circumstances when evaluating a witness’s testimony, particularly in cases involving trauma or disability.

This approach contrasts with a strict, formalistic application of the rules of evidence, which could potentially exclude valuable testimony from vulnerable witnesses. The Court’s decision reflects a more nuanced and compassionate approach, prioritizing the pursuit of justice while safeguarding the rights of the accused.

Moreover, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence but may be proven through the conduct of the accused, which indicates a common purpose to commit a crime.

In this case, the Court found that the concerted actions of the accused-appellants pointed to a unity of purpose and a concerted effort to commit the crimes. The defense of alibi, offered by the accused, was deemed insufficient to overcome the positive identification made by Cherry Mae. The Court reiterated that alibi is a weak defense that is easily fabricated and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused.

The Court then turned to the matter of damages, updating the amounts awarded to reflect current jurisprudence. It stated that:

Applying prevailing jurisprudence which has increased the amount of awards for damages in criminal cases to show not only the Court’s, but all of society’s outrage over such crimes and wastage of lives.

These increased awards serve as a testament to the gravity of the offenses and the need to provide just compensation to the victims and their families.

The decision in People v. Golidan has significant implications for the legal system. It reinforces the principle that individuals with disabilities are presumed competent to testify unless proven otherwise. It underscores the importance of individualized assessments of competency, rather than relying on stereotypes or generalizations. It highlights the trial court’s crucial role in evaluating witness credibility and the appellate court’s deference to those findings. Finally, it clarifies that the finding of conspiracy can be based on the concerted actions of the accused which point to a unity of purpose.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a child with cerebral palsy could be considered a competent witness in court, specifically if she could accurately perceive and truthfully relay events.
What is the legal definition of a competent witness?	A competent witness is someone who can perceive events and communicate those perceptions to others, as stated in the Rules of Court.
How did the prosecution establish Cherry Mae’s competency?	The prosecution presented expert testimony from a neurologist who stated that while Cherry Mae’s motor skills were impaired, her cognitive abilities and capacity to recall events were intact.
Why did the Court defer to the trial court’s assessment of Cherry Mae?	The Court deferred because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe Cherry Mae firsthand, assess her demeanor, and evaluate the credibility of her testimony, an opportunity not available to appellate courts.
What is the significance of the finding of conspiracy in this case?	The finding of conspiracy meant that all the accused could be held liable for the crimes committed, as the act of one conspirator is the act of all.
What was the role of the defense of alibi in this case?	The defense of alibi was deemed insufficient to overcome the positive identification made by Cherry Mae, as the accused failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene.
How did the Supreme Court modify the damages awarded in this case?	The Supreme Court increased the amounts awarded to reflect current jurisprudence, aiming to show society’s outrage over such heinous crimes and to provide just compensation to the victims and their families.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for individuals with disabilities?	The ruling reinforces that individuals with disabilities are presumed competent to testify unless proven otherwise, promoting individualized assessments of competency rather than relying on stereotypes.

The People v. Golidan serves as a powerful reminder that justice must be accessible to all, regardless of disability. By affirming the competency of a child with cerebral palsy to testify, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of vulnerable victims and reinforced the importance of individualized assessments in the pursuit of truth. This landmark decision ensures that the voices of all witnesses, including those with disabilities, can be heard and considered in the pursuit of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Golidan y Coto-ong, Francis Nacionales y Fernandez, and Teddy Ogsila y Tahil, G.R. No. 205307, January 11, 2018