18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mendoza

*
G.R. No. 113791. February 22, 1996.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ROLANDO MENDOZA, accused-appellant.

Evidence; Witnesses; Children; Any child, regardless of age, can

be a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can make
known his perception to others and of relating truthfully facts
respecting which he is examined.·It is thus clear that any child,
regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive,
and perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of
relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined. In the
1913

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

19

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 19

People vs. Mendoza

decision in United States vs. Buncad, this Court stated: Professor

Wigmore, after referring to the common-law precedents upon this
point, says: „But this much may be taken as settled, that no rule
defines any particular age as conclusive of incapacity; in each
instance the capacity of the particular child is to be investigated.‰
(Wigmore on Evidence, vol. I, p. 638).
Same; Same; Same; Requirements for a ChildÊs Competency as
a Witness.·The requirements then of a childÊs competency as a
witness are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) capacity of
recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. And in ascertaining
whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the
foregoing requirements, it is settled that the trial court is called
upon to make such determination.
Same; Same; Same; There are certain matters that aid the trial
court in assessing the credibility of a witness which are not available
to the appellate court, such as emphasis, gesture, and the inflection
of the voice of the witness.·We defer to such observation and
explanation. Indeed, there are certain matters that aid the trial
court in assessing the credibility of a witness which are not
available to the appellate court, such as emphasis, gesture, and the
inflection of the voice of the witness. The trial court had the distinct
opportunity to make such observations and to avail of such aids
while Paul Michael was on the witness stand, thusly, we find no
reason to disregard the assessment made by the trial court.
Same; Same; Same; Verily, „from the mouths of children we get
the truth.‰·We realize how extremely painful it was for Paul
Michael to reveal that it was his father who burned his mother. He
knew that such a revelation could send his father to jail and thus
brand him a son of a killer or a convict. If he did, nevertheless, it
was to expose the truth and give justice to his mother who met an
excruciatingly painful death. Verily, „from the mouths of children
we get the truth.‰
Criminal Law; Parricide; It goes without saying that an accused
is liable for all the consequences of his felonious act.·Neither are
we persuaded by the accused-appellantÊs claim that the cause of
death of his wife was hypostatic pneumonia and not due to the
burns she sustained. Such a claim borders on misrepresentation, for
as earlier shown, both the Autopsy Report (Exhibit „H-1‰) and the

20

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mendoza

Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination (Exhibit „H‰) indicated the

cause of death to be „hypostatic pneumonia; infected fourth degree
burns.‰ Moreover, as testified to by Dr. Nieto Salvador, the
proximate cause of the hypostatic pneumonia was GinaÊs recumbent
position due to the fourth degree burns she suffered. x x x It goes
without saying that an accused is liable for all the consequences of
his felonious act.
Same; Same; Flight; All protestations of innocence of the
accused are belied by his flight as indicative of guilt on his part, or
of his guilty mind.·Finally, the accused-appellant was never seen
after the death of his wife·neither during her wake nor at her
burial. His whereabouts were unknown. He did not even bother to
visit his children or inform them where to find him in case they
needed him, knowing all too well that he was the only parent left to
them. In short, he was even afraid to see his children; he could not
trust them. In a manner of speaking, he was afraid of his own
shadow. All his protestations of innocence are thus belied by his
flight as indicative of guilt on his part, or of his guilty mind. It has
been said that the wicked man flees though no man pursueth, but
the righteous are as bold as a lion. The explanation proffered for his
flight is lame and feeble, moreover, he offered no credible proof that
indeed the family of his wife had threatened him bodily harm.
Same; Mitigating Circumstances; Intoxication; The mitigating
circumstance of intoxication is appreciated where the accused
committed the felony in a state of intoxication and there was no
sufficient proof that it was habitual nor subsequent to the plan to
commit the felony.·The trial court correctly appreciated in favor of
the accused-appellant the mitigating circumstance of intoxication.
The accused-appellant committed the felony in question in a state of
intoxication and there was no sufficient proof that it was habitual
nor subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Malolos, Bulacan, Br. 8.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Miguel P. Pineda for accused-appellant.

21

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 21

People vs. Mendoza

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Maria Gina Avila Mendoza, a mother of three young

children, was put to fire in her home in Balasing, Sta.
Maria, Bulacan, on 22 November 1989. She suffered
extensive second to fourth degree burns and died of
hypostatic pneumonia and infected fourth degree burns on
30 November 1989. Her husband, accused-appellant
Rolando Mendoza, was charged with the crime of parricide
in an information filed on 29 June 1990 with Branch 8 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The
accusatory portion thereof read:

That on or about the 22nd day of November, 1989, in the

municipality of Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
Rolando Mendoza, armed with a kerosene gas [sic] and with intent
to kill his wife Maria Gina Mendoza, with whom he was united in
lawful wedlock, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and burn with the kerosene gas he was
then provided, the said Maria Gina Mendoza which directly caused
her death.
1
Contrary to law.

Trial on the merits was had after accused-appellant

2
entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment.
The prosecution presented as its witnesses Paul Michael
Mendoza, a five-year old child of the victim and the
accused-appellant; Jhun Avila, Teofisto Avila, and Rodora
Avila, the victimÊs brother, father, and sister, respectively;
and Dr. Nieto M. Salvador, the Medico-Legal Officer of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). On its part, the
defense presented the accused-appellant himself and
Erlinda Porciuncula, a childhood friend.
The testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution
established the following facts:

_______________

1 Original Records (OR), 1; Rollo, 7.

2 OR, 5.

22

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mendoza

The accused-appellant and the victim were married on 30

January 1985 at the Sto. Cristo Parish Church in Bocaue,
3
Bulacan and lived in Balasing, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Their
union bore three children: Paul Michael, the eldest, who
 4
was born5 on 7 June 1985, John-John, and Paula, the
youngest.
In the evening of 22 November 1989, the accused-
appellant and his wife were in their residence with their
children. At around 4:00 a.m. the next morning, relatives of
the accused-appellant went to the house of Jhun Avila (the
victimÊs brother) in Wawa, Balagtas, Bulacan, and informed
him that his sister Gina „got burned.‰ Two hours later,
Jhun and his father Teofisto Avila went to the house of
Gina and her husband, only to discover that the latter were
not there. They found the things inside the house in
disarray; saw a Coke bottle which smelled of kerosene, hair
strands and burned human flesh in the comfort room; and
the burned clothes of Gina outside the house. They also
noticed that the branches and leaves of the atienza tree in
front of the house were likewise somewhat burned. They
proceeded to a neighborÊs house where Paul Michael, John-
John, and Paula were temporarily sheltered. Paul Michael
was sitting in a corner and somewhat „tulala,‰ while Paula 6
was sleeping. Jhun then brought the children to his house.
As Erlinda Porciuncula informed the Avila family that
Gina had been brought to the Manila Sanitarium Hospital7
in Pasay City, Teofisto, Jhun, and Rodora proceeded there.
According to Jhun, however, they were not able to talk to
Gina that day as she was inside the operating room. It was
only after two days that Jhun was able to see Gina, who lay
„naked with all the hospital gadget[s] in the mouth and at
the head8 and she was completely bald and her body was
burned.‰ Jhun

_______________

3 Exhibit „B‰; TSN, 25 March 1991, 4.

4 TSN, 18 February 1991, 4.
5 Id., 9.
6 TSN, 25 March 1991, 6-13.
7 TSN, 7 June 1991, 4.
8 TSN, 25 March 1991, 13.

23

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 23

People vs. Mendoza
likewise testified that Gina was
9
unable to talk to her sister
Rodora nor her father Teofisto.
Gina died on 30 November 1989. Dr. Noel Minay,
Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, conducted the autopsy
and determined the cause of death to 10be „hypostatic
pneumonia; infected
11
4th degree burns‰; and in his
Autopsy Report, he entered the following post-mortem
findings:

Burns, extensive, second to fourth degree, with skin grafts,

excepting the back of the neck and head, pelvic area, buttocks,
whole of the back, posterior aspect of the right leg, and lower
anterior third of the leg and foot, left side.
Lungs, with foci of consoliditions at the bases; transections
shows (sic) yellowish mucoid material in the lower part of the
tracheo-bronchial tree.
Brain and other visceral organs, marked congestion.
Stomach contains small amount of yellowish fluid material.

This report also indicated that the cause of death was

„HYPOSTATIC PNEUMONIA; INFECTED FOURTH
DEGREE BURNS.‰
Dr. Nieto M. Salvador testified on the certification and
autopsy report, in view of Dr. MinayÊs resignation from the
NBI sometime
12
after he examined the cadaver of the
victim.
In the evening of 30 November 1989, Jhun told Paul
Michael that his mother Gina had died. Paul Michael then
narrated to him what actually happened to his mother that
fateful evening. Because of these revelations and the
findings of the doctor, Jhun reported the matter to the
police authori-

_______________

9 TSN, 25 March 1991, 14. Rodora however testified that Gina

whispered to them that the accused-appellant, who was drunk, tied her,
doused her with kerosene, and lit her up (TSN, 2 August 1991, 8), but the
trial court did not believe the said testimony.
10 Exhibit „H‰ (Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination).
11 Exhibit „H-1.‰
12 TSN, 20 December 1991, 1-13.

24

24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 People vs. Mendoza

13
ties in Sta. Maria, Bulacan.
Jhun Avila had gone five times to the residence of Gina
and the accused-appellant from 23 November 1989 to 30
November 1989, yet he did not see the accused-appellant;
in fact, the latter never showed up during the wake nor
burial of Gina. It was only when the accused-appellant was
arrested 14in the house of a woman in Longos-Balagtas,
Bulacan, that Jhun saw him for the first time after the
incident.
The medical expenses incurred for the hospitalization of
Gina amounted to P88,750.00, of which, her parents were
able to pay only P18,000.00. For the balance, Teofisto
15
had
to sign a promissory note to be paid on installments.
As to how Gina was burned, only five-year old Paul
Michael could testify thereon.
In his testimony during the presentation of the evidence
in chief on 18 February 1991, Paul Michael declared that
one evening inside their house, his father boxed his mother
on her mouth and then tied her up. However, the witness
did not answer succeeding questions which sought to elicit
what happened thereafter, although he kept on looking at
his father throughout this period. He later revealed that he
saw matches and kerosene in their house. He likewise
declared that
16
his mother was now in heaven because she
was dead. During his rebuttal testimony on 12 October
1992, Paul Michael categorically declared that it was his
father who „burned‰ his mother. The accused-appellant,
who was drunk at that time, first tied the victimÊs hands
behind her back, then „poured kerosene‰ on the front of her
body and set her aflame. Paul Michael further declared
that his father tied-up his mother because they quarreled
when his mother wanted him (Paul Michael) to go with the
accused-appellant to the street corner, but his father
refused. Finally, many times before, his parents quarreled

_______________

13 TSN, 25 March 1991, 17-19.

14 Id., 19-20.
15 Exhibit „F‰; Id., 15-16.
16 TSN, 18 February 1991, 11, 13-21.

25
 VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 25
People vs. Mendoza

17
because his father was always drunk. Pertinent portions
of Paul MichaelÊs testimony on rebuttal are as follows:

Q When your father Rolando Mendoza testified on direct

examination, he stated that when he returned to your
house in Balasing, Sta. Maria, Bulacan on November
22, 1989, he saw your mother was jumping up and
down while her dress was already burning. What can
you say about that?
A It is not true, Sir.
Q Why do you say that it is not true?
A Because it was he who burned my mother, Sir.
COURT:
How did he burn your mother?
A At first he tied up my mother, then he poured kerosine
[sic] upon my mother, Sir.
Q What was tied, the hands or the feet of your mother?
A The hands, Your Honor.
Q How was it tied?
A At the back, Your Honor.
Q Do you know the reason why she was tied up?
A Yes, Your Honor. They were quarreling because my
mother wanted me to go with my father to [sic] street
corner.
Q Then what happened next?
A Because of that they quarreled already.
Q What you mean is that your mother was objecting you
to go [sic] with your father?
A My mother wanted me to go with my father but my
father refused me [sic] to go with him, Your Honor.
Q What would you do at the street corner with you
father?
A She just wanted me to accompany my father.
Q And because of that quarrel, your father tied the hands
of your mother?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Then he put kerosine [sic] at the front body [sic] of your
mother?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And after putting kerosine [sic], what did he do next?

_______________

17 TSN, 12 October 1992, 2-5.

26

26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mendoza

A He lighted it, Your Honor.

Q Was that the first time that you[r] mother and your
father quarreled?
A Many times, Your Honor.
Q What was the cause of their quarrel?
A Because my father was always drunk, Your Honor.
Q At the time when your mother was tied and then
kerosine [sic] was poured upon her dress, was your
father drunk?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Your father always went out and when he returned he
was always drunk?
18
A Yes, Your Honor.

The defense, of course, had a different story to tell.

Erlinda Porciuncula, who grew up with the accused-
appellant and was like a sister to him, testified that at
around 8:30 p.m. of 22 November 1989, Rolando Mendoza
came to her house asking for help because his wife burned
herself. Together with the accused-appellant, she borrowed
the owner-type jeep of her neighbor so they could bring his
wife to the hospital. They proceeded to St. MaryÊs Hospital,
but the attending physician advised them to bring the
victim to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). At the
hospital, the staff could not admit the victim due to the
unavailability of rooms. On the way to the PGH, the victim,
who was lying in the front seat of the jeep, told Porciuncula
that she was fed up with her life and was entrusting her
children to her. They then went to the Manila Sanitarium
Hospital where the victim was immediately given first aid
and transferred to „the isolated Room No. 328.‰ The
accused-appellant requested the witness to buy medicine
and inform the relatives of the victim of what had
happened, which she acceded to. She was able to visit the
victim three more times before the victim died on 30
November 1989, and on two of these19
occasions, she saw the
accused-appellant at the hospital.

_______________

18 TSN, 12 October 1992, 3-5.

19 TSN, 9 March 1992, 2-12.

27

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 27

People vs. Mendoza

Accused-appellant Rolando Mendoza testified that on 22

November 1989, between 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., three persons
who wanted to befriend him visited him in his house. These
three persons, of whom the accused-appellant could only
name one, brought a bottle of liquor and had a drinking
session with him, which lasted about an hour or two. As
these three persons were leaving, the accused-appellant
offered to accompany them to the road. After doing so, he
returned home, whereupon he saw his wife jumping up and
down and removing her burning clothes. He saw a pail of
water which he then used to douse out the flames. At this
time, his wife cursed him and said: „Putang-ina mo,
sawang-sawa na ako 20
sa buhay na ito,‰ and „Huwag mo
akong pakialaman.‰ The accused-appellant did not mind
her, merely proceeded to remove her dress and cried for
help. The neighbors came over and he entrusted the
children to them. Several others arrived and he asked one
of them who owned a vehicle to help him bring his wife to
the hospital. They were able to bring her to St. MaryÊs
Hospital, but since the hospital did not have a burns
specialist, they were advised to bring the victim to a
hospital in Manila. The driver of the jeep, however, refused
to bring them to Manila as he had neither a driverÊs license
nor gas. The accused-appellant was instead brought to
Bocaue, Bulacan, and there he was able to procure another
vehicle and borrow some money. Eventually, his wife was
brought to the Manila Sanitarium Hospital after the PGH
refused to admit the victim. He stayed with his wife from
the time she was admitted up to the time she died, and
even bought the needed medicines. He did not attend her
wake nor burial because of the threats his brother-in-law
made. When asked if he knew why his wife
21
burned herself,
he surmised that 22she was „aburido‰ from all their
financial difficulties.

_______________

20 These translate to: „Child of a prostitute, IÊm sick and tired of this
Life‰ and „DonÊt mind me.‰
21 This translates to „fed up with.‰
22 TSN, 10 July 1992, 2-20; TSN, 3 August 1992, 2-5.

28

28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mendoza

In giving23full credence to the testimony of eyewitness Paul

Michael, the trial court observed that:

As provided by Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, a person

who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to
others, may be a witness. A four-year old boy can already speak
clearly, can understand things happening around him, and ready to
study, to read and to write. For families who can afford, a four-year
old child is already sent to the nursery to begin his/her studies. An
intelligent boy is undoubtedly the best observer to be found. He is
little influenced by the suggestion of others and describes objects
and occurrences as he has really seen them (Pp. vs. Bustos, 45 Phil.
9). Paul Michael was five months over four years when the incident
happened. He could perceive things happening around him. This
was the reason why when his grandfather and an uncle found him
in the house of a neighbor, he was in a state of shock, or at least
dumb-founded (tulala). Because he knew the implication of what
had happened to his mother. He knew that the burning of his
mother might cause her death. If, indeed, he could not yet perceive
things, such happening would pass unnoticed and without impact
on him. Unless a childÊs testimony is punctured with serious
inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that he was coached, if he
can perceive and make known his perception, he is considered a
competent witness (Pp. vs. Cidro, et al., 56 O.G. 3547).
The first time Paul Michael was presented as [a] witness, the
only thing substantial he testified on was that his father boxed his
mother in the mouth and tied her. On further questions, he refused
to answer anymore. The Court noticed the reason for such adamant
attitude of the witness. His father, the accused, was directly in his
sight and whenever their eyes met, the child could speak no more.
The second time the witness was presented, the private prosecutor
covered the child from the accused. The Court likewise directed the
accused to sit farther away thereby placing the accused out of the
direct sight of the witness. As a result, the child was able to testify
24
freely and extensively without hesitation.

_______________

23 Who was only 4 years, 5 months and 15 days old when the incident
occurred; and 5 years, 8 months and 11 days old when he initially
testified.
24 Rollo, 26-27.

29

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 29

People vs. Mendoza

The trial court rejected the version of the accused-

appellant, stating that:

Accused Rolando Mendoza made the defense that his wife Maria
Gina Avila-Mendoza burned herself. He, however, lost courage when
Gina died. After GinaÊs death, he left the hospital and never
returned. He failed to visit her during the wake and even during
the burial. He was forced to come out only when arrested in a house
of a woman in Longos, Balagtas, Bulacan. Against such behaviour
of his may be applied an interpretation of flight in criminal law·
that flight of the accused is an evidence of guilt and a guilty
conscience (U.S. vs. Alegado, 25 Phil. 310). Accused gave as a
reason for his failure to attend the wake and burial of his wife the
threat of his brother-in-law to kill him if anything would happen to
Gina. It is said that the wicked flee even when no man pursueth,
whereas the righteous are as brave as a lion (U.S. vs. Sarikala, 37
Phil. 486). If, indeed, accused was not guilty and nothing bothered
his conscience, he would be brave as a lion to meet his brother-in-
law and face any and all consequences. In the same way that if his
conscience is clear, no threat, real or imaginary, in the whole world
would prevent him from staying by the side of his wife during her
last moments on earth. The fact that he went into hiding, ashamed
or fearful of the death of his wife is an indication of his guilt.
Further, the burning in the dress and body of Gina gives support to
the claim of the prosecution that she was burned. Paul Michael
testified that the hands of his mother were tied at the back. Jhun
Avila testified that the branches and leaves of the atienza tree were
burned. They tend to show that Gina was tied at the back, placed
near the trunk of a tree and burned. Being tied, only the front
portion of her body would naturally be burned. The tendency of one
who burns himself is to burn his whole body and not stay stationary
in one position so that both his front and back portions of his body
would be burned. In this case, however, only the front portion of
GinaÊs dress and body were burned as well as the branches and
leaves of the atienza tree. That indicates that while the victim was
25
burning, she remained stationary in the place where she was tied.

Accordingly, the trial court convicted the accused-appellant

as follows:

_______________

25 Rollo, 27-28.

30

30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mendoza

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Rolando Mendoza

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide, defined
and penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code and
hereby sentences him to a penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to
indemnify the parents of the victim Maria Gina Avila-Mendoza the
sum of P88,000.00 representing the amount of hospital bills of the
victim. No costs.
26
SO ORDERED.

In this appeal, the accused-appellant prays for a reversal of

the lower courtÊs decision, maintaining that if his evidence
is considered in its entirety, it would show his innocence.
The accused-appellant underscores the fact that:

[A]fter November 22, 1989, the date of the incident, the child Paul
Michael Mendoza had been and remains under the custody and care
of the parents and brothers and sisters of the late Maria Gina
Mendoza, who in full and unwavering anger, hatred, hostility,
resentment, revenge and spite against the accused, pursued the
charge against the accused and the ones who brought the child to
27
the court to testify.

He thus asks this Court to disregard the testimony of Paul

Michael for being „open to serious question and
consideration‰ as it was „often attended [by] unintelligible
answers and punctuated by contrary answers to previously
given answers‰; „[b]esides the childÊs tender age, he
suffer[s] from [a] lack or inadequacy of sense of duty to tell
the truth.‰ He further claims that per the findings of the
Medico-Legal Officer, the
28
victim did not die of burns but of
hypostatic pneumonia.
After a thorough examination of the records and
scrutiny of the evidence, we find no merit in this appeal.
The accused-appellantÊs seven-page Brief miserably fails to
present convincing grounds why the challenged decision
should be overturned.

_______________

26 Id., 29.
27 AppellantÊs Brief, 3; Rollo, 51.
28 Id., 4-6; Id., 52-54.

31

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 31

People vs. Mendoza

The lower court convicted the accused-appellant primarily

on the basis of the testimony of eyewitness Paul Michael
Mendoza, and it is obvious that the pith of the present
appeal is the childÊs competency to testify and the
credibility of his testimony.
Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who

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

With respect to the disqualification of children to be

witnesses, Section 21(b) of the abovementioned rule reads:
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
xxx

(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them

incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are
examined and of relating them truthfully.

It is thus clear that any child, regardless of age, can be a

competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known his perception to others and of relating
truthfully facts respecting which he is examined.
29
In the
1913 decision in United States vs. Buncad, this Court
stated:

Professor Wigmore, after referring to the common-law precedents

upon this point, says: „But this much may be taken as settled, that
no rule defines any particular age as conclusive of incapacity; in
each instance the capacity of the particular child is to be
30
investigated.‰ (Wigmore on Evidence, vol. I, p. 638)

While on the same subject, Underhill declares:

§ 257. Children on the witness stand.·Under the common law,

competency of a child under the age of fourteen years to testify

_______________

29 25 Phil. 530, 536 [1913].

30 This is now §505, vol. 2 [1940 ed.], 595, WigmoreÊs treatise.

32

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mendoza

must be shown to the satisfaction of the court. He is presumptively

incompetent, but if he is shown to be competent it is immaterial
how young he may be when he testifies. He is competent if he
possesses mental capacity and memory sufficient to enable him to
give a reasonable and intelligible account of the transaction he has
seen, if he understands and has a just appreciation of the difference
between right and wrong, and comprehends the character, meaning
and obligation of an oath. If the witness fulfills these requirements,
it is immaterial as bearing upon his competency that he is unable to
define the oath or to define testimony. In the wise discretion of the
court, a child four, five, six and for such ages as seven, eight, nine,
ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen or fifteen years of age may be shown
competent to testify. It may not be said that there is any particular
age at which as a matter of law all children are competent or
31
incompetent . . . .

The requirements then of a childÊs competency as a witness

are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) capacity 32
of
recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. And in
ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence
according to the foregoing requirements, it is settled that 33
the trial court is called upon to make such34determination.
As held in United States35 vs. Buncad, quoting from
Wheeler36vs. United States, and 37reiterated in People vs.
Raptus and People vs. Libungan:

The decision of this question rests primarily with the trial judge,
who sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his apparent
possession or lack of intelligence, and may resort to any
examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and
intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligations of an
oath. As many of these matters cannot be photographed into the
record, the decision of the

_______________

31 UnderhillÊs Criminal Evidence, vol. 1, Fifth ed. [1956], Section 257, 646-
651.
32 Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 2 [1940 ed.], § 506, 596.
33 Id., § 507, 597. See also Underhill, op. cit., 651.
34 Supra note 29.
35 159 U.S. 523 [1895].
36 198 SCRA 425, 433 [1991].
37 220 SCRA 315, 323 (1993].

33

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 33

People vs. Mendoza

trial judge will not be disturbed on review unless from that which is
38
preserved it is clear that it was erroneous.

The trial court has adjudged Paul Michael competent to

testify. We agree. A close and careful examination of the
testimony of Paul Michael shows that at the time he
testified, he could be deemed a child of above average
intelligence, i.e., capable of giving responsive answers to
the questions asked of him by the trial judge, as well as
recalling events and relating them to such recollections.
The initial hesitancy of Paul Michael to name his father as
the author of the crime was sufficiently explained by the
trial court as follows:

The first time Paul Michael was presented as [a] witness, the only
thing substantial he testified on was that his father boxed his
mother in the mouth and tied her. On further questions, he refused
to answer anymore. The Court noticed the reason for such adamant
attitude of the witness. His father, the accused, was directly in his
sight and whenever their eyes met, the child could speak no more.
The second time the witness was presented, the private prosecutor
covered the child from the accused. The Court likewise directed the
accused to sit farther away thereby placing the accused out of the
direct sight of the witness. As a result, the child was able to testify
39
freely and extensively without hesitation.

We defer to such observation and explanation. Indeed,

there are certain matters that aid the trial court in
assessing the credibility of a witness which are not
available to the appellate court, such as emphasis, gesture,
and the inflection of the voice of the witness. The trial court
had the distinct opportunity to make such observations and
to avail
40
of such aids while Paul Michael was on the witness
stand, thusly, we find no reason to disregard the
assessment made by the trial court.
The accused-appellantÊs contention that Paul MichaelÊs
testimony could have been influenced by the relatives of
Gina,

_______________

38 Supra note 29 at 536-537.

39 Rollo, 26-27.
40 People vs. Lagrosa, Jr., 230 SCRA 298, 306 [1994].

34

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mendoza

who were full of „unwavering anger, hatred, hostility,

resentment, revenge,‰ more so since the child had been in
their custody since after 22 November 1989, is
unacceptable. The charge is nothing but unmitigated
speculation as not a shred of evidence was offered in
support thereof. Not even the rigorous cross-examination
Paul Michael underwent dented the probative force of his
testimony; on the contrary, it merely added strength
thereto as it elicited nothing less than the boyÊs adherence
to truth.
We realize how extremely painful it was for Paul
Michael to reveal that it was his father who burned his
mother. He knew that such a revelation could send his
father to jail and thus brand him a son of a killer or a
convict. If he did, nevertheless, it was to expose the truth
and give justice to his mother who met an excruciatingly
painful death.
41
Verily, „from the mouths of children we get
the truth.‰
Neither are we persuaded by the accused-appellantÊs
claim that the cause of death of his wife was hypostatic
pneumonia and not due to the burns she sustained. Such a
claim borders on misrepresentation, for as earlier shown,
both the Autopsy Report (Exhibit „H-1‰) and the Certificate
of Post-Mortem Examination (Exhibit „H‰) indicated the
cause of death to be „hypostatic pneumonia; infected fourth
degree burns.‰ Moreover, as testified to by Dr. Nieto
Salvador, the proximate cause of the hypostatic pneumonia
was GinaÊs recumbent position due to the fourth degree
burns she suffered. Thus:

COURT:
What could have caused hypostatic pneumonia?
A The victim was recumbent because of her intensive
infections in front of her body and therefore she was
always lying down which could have caused the
hypostatic pneumonia.
Q What you mean [is] it [was] because of the fourth
degree burns the victim sustained in front thatÊs why
she was always lying down and unable to change her
position?
A Yes, Your Honor.

_______________

41 People vs. Pedrosa, 169 SCRA 545, 556 [1989].

35
 VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 22, 1996 35
People vs. Mendoza

Q Do you mean that hypostatic pneumonia can be

acquire[d] by merely always lying down?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Is that the only cause?
A ThatÊs why it is called hypostatic because hypostatic
means that the assumed position of the patient is
recumbent and the recumbent position of the patient
would greatly affect the fluids in the lungs as it canÊt
flow down.
xxx
Q Would you say that hypostatic pneumonia may also be
caused by fourth degree burns?
42
A Yes, Sir.

It goes without saying that an accused

43
is liable for all the
consequences of his felonious act.
Finally, the accused-appellant was never seen after the
death of his wife·neither during her wake nor at her
burial. His whereabouts were unknown. He did not even
bother to visit his children or inform them where to find
him in case they needed him, knowing all too well that he
was the only parent left to them. In short, he was even
afraid to see his children; he could not trust them. In a
manner of speaking, he was afraid of his own shadow. All
his protestations of innocence are thus belied by his flight
as indicative of guilt on his part, or of his guilty mind. It
has been said that the wicked man flees though no44 man
pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. The
explanation proffered for his flight is lame and feeble,
moreover, he offered no credible proof that indeed the
family of his wife had threatened him bodily harm.
The trial court correctly appreciated in favor of the
accused-appellant the mitigating circumstance of
intoxication. The

_______________

42 TSN, 20 December 1991, 11-12.

 43 Article 4(1), Revised Penal Code; RAMON C. AQUINO, The Revised
Penal Code, vol. 1, 1987 ed., 68.
44 Proverbs, 28:1; U.S. vs. Alegado, 25 Phil. 510, 512 [1913]; U.S. vs.
Sarikala, 37 Phil. 486, 487 [1918]; People vs. Garcia, 209 SCRA 164, 177
[1992]; People vs. Castor, 216 SCRA 410, 420 [1992]; People vs. Enciso,
223 SCRA 675, 688 [1993]; People vs. Alvero, 224 SCRA 16, 33 [1993].

36

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Mendoza

accused-appellant committed the felony in question in a

state of intoxication and there was no sufficient proof that
it was 45habitual nor subsequent to the plan to commit the
felony. It failed, however, to award civil indemnity to the
children of the victim. Conformably with current case law,
they should be awarded the sum of P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby
DISMISSED. Being in accordance with the facts and the
law, the challenged decision of Branch 8 of the Regional
Trial Court of Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 1414-M-90 is
AFFIRMED, subject to the above modification on the
additional award of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity, to the
heirs of the victim, Gina Avila Mendoza.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Melo, Francisco and

Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Notes.·In internal medicine as in criminal law,

excessive intake of liquor can be hazardous. (People vs.
Capoquian, 236 SCRA 655 [1994])
Flight evidences guilt and a guilty conscience, and it
strongly indicates a guilty mind or betrays the existence of
a guilty conscience. (People vs. Lopez, Jr., 245 SCRA 95
[1995])

··o0o··

_______________

45 Article 15, Revised Penal Code.

37
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.