You must've noticed the shaky penmanship. I wrote the red scribbled annotations on the sides on this digested case inside a moving public vehicle. an FX Taxi particularly. 2 things to consider though before you rid this off as an unreadable piece of 'sheet'. 1. The f-ck-n (sorry for the flowery word) driver driving recklessly imprudent resulting to damage to my print out. 2. The girl seated next to me who was constantly moving talking on the phone yet eavesdropping on what I was writing.
See that? the A-PNG-TE?...no its not short for 'ang panget' (coz my writing has become panget)... I hope you see it, the acronym written at the top middle portion. In my mental vocabulary it stands for "The Accused was arraigned and he Pleaded Not Guilty, hence Trial Ensued" That just about explains how in dire need I was to assess this case quickly before 5:00 pm. Or I'll be dead in the bloody recitation again for what the 2nd time?
This is a criminal case of course. Zeroing in on Sec. 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The 'Witness Qualification Rule'. The crux of the case is the issue of credibility of the prosecution witness due to his age. A little boy whose barely 5 years old. The crime was committed when his father whose fucked up in the head. (I cant believe I said the 'f' word here again) attacked his wife with a bottle of kerosene gas and with intent to kill lit and burned the poor woman which directly caused her death.
Of course accused was charged with parricide and when you're charged with a crime what would eventually happen?.. right... A-PNG-TE.
Accused raised the depressive state of mind of his wife as defense which resulted to the unthinkable act of burning herself.
Accused raised the depressive state of mind of his wife as defense which resulted to the unthinkable act of burning herself.
Oh but the 4 year old boy was there and the boy saw everything. Tsk tsk tsk. We therefore have the presence of a firsthand most credible witness.
So the prosecution presented the boy to the witness stand and the child categorically declared it was his father who burned and killed his mother. (poor kid, must've been all too shocking for him)
Counsel for the defense assailing the credibility of the witness due to his tender age objected invoking Sec. 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court saying it is within the purview of the general rule of the provision. And also not one coming along the lines of the exception.
The court ruled NAY... (short for 'nanay', e di ba nanay nya yun namatay, joke).
HELD:
The Supreme Court said NO. On the contrary, it is actually under the exception, meaning the exception to the rule applies. Court stated that "a four year old boy already speaks clearly and can understand things happening around him"
HELD:
The Supreme Court said NO. On the contrary, it is actually under the exception, meaning the exception to the rule applies. Court stated that "a four year old boy already speaks clearly and can understand things happening around him"
Obviously accused appealed to CA. But the CA affirmed the previous decision. (Bleh!)
Desperately elevating the matter to SC accused petitioned for a review for certiorari.
But petition was denied affirming assailed decision of the appellate court.
What did SC say? Nothing could have said it more beautifully. SC said. "Any child regardless of age can be competent witness provided he/she satisfy the 3 requisites provided in the exception to the rule. The child must be 1. can perceive, 2. is perceiving, 3. can make known his/her perception to others" And all the 3 requisites were complied with.
Accused was finally convicted. Thanks to the kid. I wish somehow this boy was able to rebound from everything that happened. Children deserve better than this, no matter who or what they are.
