Dario was accused of having raped Melita, a six year old minor. The rape happened at about noontime. Melita was then on her way home in a certain Sitio in Zambales when Dario suddenly appeared, introduced himself as "Danny", immediately strangled Melita and boxed her abdomen. Still in shock, Melita fell down and Dario proceeded to satisfy his lust on the poor child. Melita felt excruciating pain but was not able to repel Dario whose strength and weight totally engulfed her. She could only cry as her young body was being ravished amidst the barking of a dog.
After satisfying his beastly desires, Dario ran away. Melita on the other hand with bloodied dress due to profuse bleeding of the vagina, managed to stand and seek help running to the nearby house of Cora who was already outside because she heard the barking dog. When Cora asked her what happened, Melita shouted, "ni-rape ako ni-rape ako". Cora summoned her husband and other companions to look for Melita’s attacker but was unable to find him. Then they brought Melita to her parents.
Melita was brought to the hospital where she was examined and operated on to repair the lacerations on her genitals. Meanwhile her parents reported the matter to the police and related what Melita told them about a certain "Danny" who raped their daughter. When Melita came out of the hospital, Dario was already arrested by the police. In the police station she positively identified Dario as the "Danny" who raped her while the latter was alone in a cell.
During the trial Melita herself testified, together with her parents, Cora, and the Doctor who examined and treated her. In her testimony, Melita was able to identify Dario because the prosecution pointed to him beforehand as the man wearing an orange t-shirt. Melita identified him in open court as the man named "Danny" without giving any description or identifying mark.
Despite his alibi, the lower court convicted Dario and sentenced him to death. Dario assailed this decision. He said that the manner by which he was identified was irregular. According to him Melita was able to identify him because the prosecutor led Melita and pointed to him as the man wearing an orange T-shirt. Even the investigation in the police station was improper because he was alone in the cell when Melita identified him. He bewailed that his identification was not done with the usual police line-up. So with this irregular identification, his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt Dario concluded.
Was Dario correct?
No.
As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rule provides exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years, as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or suggestion. Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips.In the case at bar, the trial court was justified in allowing leading questions to Melita as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the recall of events difficult if not uncertain.
The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to the courts in exercising control over the questioning of a child witness in-order (1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) to ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child,(3) to protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and (4) to avoid waste of time( Rule on Examination of Child Witness, December 15, 2000). Leading questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed if the same will further the interest of justice.
It is highly inconceivable for a child of tender age, inexperienced in the ways of the world, to fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo medical examination of her private part, subject herself to public trial and tarnish her family honor and reputation, unless she was motivated by a strong desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her. So Dario’s death sentence was affirmed. (People vs. Perez G.R. 142556, February 5, 2003. 397 SCRA 12)