People vs Nardo

The case:
This case is an automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Albay, Branch III, which imposed on accused-appellant the death penalty for rape in Criminal Case No. 7170.

Facts:
The victim, Lorielyn Nardo, is the eldest daughter of accused- appellant. She was born on September 11, 1981 and, at the time of the incident, was fourteen (14) years old. During the trial, the defense endeavored to portray the victim as an incorrigible liar. Occasions were cited wherein the victim supposedly lied in order to obtain money or her parents' permission to leave the house. The defense also presented Atty. Gonzales (employer of the accused) as a witness which describes the victim as the one capable of concocting lies.

Issue:
Whether or not the crime of rape was established.

Ruling:
While lying may constitute a habit, the court believes that the falsehoods committed by the victim assuming them for the moment to be true, are petty and inconsequential. They are not as serious as charging one's own father of the sordid crime of rape, with all of its serious repercussions. Rule 130, Section 34, of the Rules of Court provides that: "Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did nor did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like."

On the argument of the accused-appellant that the trial court should have given credence to the witness, Atty. Santer G. Gonzales, because he is a member of the bar, the court reasoned out that the witness took the witness stand not as a lawyer but as an ordinary person. He testified in his capacity as accused-appellant's employer. As such, no special privilege should be accorded him by the trial court by reason of his being a member of the bar. He did not appear in that case as an officer of the court but as a mere witness, and hence should be treated as one.

Sifting through the entire body of evidence presented in this case, the court find nothing which would destroy the moral certainty of accused- appellant's guilt. While there may be some inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim, these are considered as minor inconsistencies which serve to strengthen her credibility as they are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood. Minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as they may even tend to strengthen rather than weaken their credibility. Inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony, for they guard against memorized falsities. Besides, a rape victim cannot be expected to recall vividly all the sordid details of the violation committed against her virtue.