People Vs Losano

PEOPLE VS JOVITO LOSANO
GR No 127122 - July 20, 1999
Facts:
On March 13, 1996 Jovito Losano was charged with raping his daughter
Rowena. The Information alleges that the offense happened sometime in May
1995, Rowena being only 6 years old when the incident happened. Losano
entered a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued. Prosecution presented as witness
Veronica Losano, the grandmother of Rowena and mother of Jovito.
Veronica testified that she discovered the rape incident when Rowena told
her about it on September 25, 1995. Veronica had Rowena examined by Dr.
Ronald Bandonill, a medico-legal officer on October 3, 1995. Bandonill issued a
medical certificate which states that 1) at the time fo the examination, there
were no extra-genital injuries on Rowena's body; and 2) that her physical
virginity was preserved. It did however state that: “The presence of congestion
and inflammation at the vestibular mucosa and the hymenal area coupled with
intense pain and tenderness indicates the probability of attempted penetration
of the area by the hard erect male organ which was not successful.”
Rowena testified that the rape happened in their house. She remembers
that her father took her clothes off, fondled her breast, and got on top of her.
She testified that it happened at night. She was sleeping with her older sister
and their grandmother Veronica when Jovito came in and carried her outside
and raped her.
Jovito testified that case was filed to discredit him. He stated that his
sister Priscilla and their mother Veronica held a grudge against him for not
selling some pieces of property to them. Jovito admitted that his other
daughter, the older sister of Rowena, filed a case against him for acts of
lasciviousness. Jovito's counsel adopted the medical certifate of Dr. Bandonill.
Trial court held Jovito guilty of rape. Imposed death penalty
Issues:
1. Whether or not Jovito was convicted of an offense not charged in the
Information
2. Whether Rowena's testimony may be given weight considering that her
answers were elicited through leading questions and that there are
inconsistencies in her testimony
3. Whether the trial court showed bias against the accused allegedly
because it peremptorily ordered his defense counsel to stipulate to the
medico-legal report, depriving him of the chance to cross-examine the
doctor on the correctness of his findings.
4. Whether the trial erred in finding that Jovito had the propensity to
sexually abuse his children on the basis of the pending acts of
lasciviousness case filed against him by his other daughter.
HELD:
1. No. The Information contained the phrase “sometime in May 1995” in
alleging the time of the offense. Jovito claims that based on the medico-legal
report the rape happened sometime in August 1995, and not in May as the
Information alleges. He claims that the congestion and inflammation in the
hymenal area would not be present if the rape happened in May 1995, 4-5
months prior to the physical examination of Rowena. Jovito claims that he
should not be convicted because it was not proven that the incident happened
in May.
Sec 11 of Rule 110 provides that it is not necessary to state in the

information the precise time of the offense except when time is a material
ingredient of the offense. Thus, since the date of the commission of the crime is
not an essential element of rape, and what is material is the occurrence of the
rape, proof as to time of rape need not correspond to the allegation in the
information.
Additionally, it is too late for the accused to object to his conviction on the
basis of the erroneous date charged in the information. Sec 1 of Rule 117
provides that the motion to quash the information must be done before the
accused enters his plea. Sec 8 of Rule 117 provides that the failure of the
accused to move to quash before he pleads to the information shall be deemed
a waiver of a motion to quash.
2. Yes. As a general rule, leading questions are not allowed. When the
witness is a child of tender years, however, it is proper for the court to allow
leading questions, as it is usually difficult for a child of tender years to state
facts without prompting or suggestion.
Jovito points to certain inconsistencies in the testimony of Rowena. The

inconsistencies, however, only pertain to minor matters. The trial court found
the testimony of Rowena to be credible; the findings of fact of the trial court is
entitled to he highest respect.
It may also be observed that for his defense, Jovito could only deny
having raped his daughter. Well-entrenched is the rule that denial is inherently
weak and easily fabricated.
3. No. It was the defense counsel who admitted to the existence of the
medico-legal report. In fact, not only did defense counsel admit the existence of
such report, it would later on adopt the same as its own exhibit. Neither may
accused repudiate the actions of his counsel; whatever decision an attorney
makes on procedural questions, even if it adversely affects his client's case, will
generally bind the client.
4. Yes the trial court erred. The case for acts of lasciviousness is still
pending. It does not prove that Jovito has the propensity to crave for his
children.

People Vs Losano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Losano

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 Vs Losano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE VS JOVITO LOSANO

GR No 127122 - July 20, 1999

Sec 11 of Rule 110 provides that it is not necessary to state in the

Jovito points to certain inconsistencies in the testimony of Rowena. The

You might also like