People vs.

Turco
337 SCRA 714 (2000)

FACTS:

Rodegelio Turco, Jr. (a.k.a. “Totong”) was charged

with the crime of rape. The prosecution alleged that the
victim, Escelea Tabada (12 yrs and 6 months old at the time of
the incident) and accused Turco were neighbors. On the night
of the incident, upon reaching her home, Escelea heard a call
from outside. She recognized the voice to be Turco’s since
they have been neighbors for 4 years and are second
cousins. When she opened the door, the accused with the
use of a towel, covered the victim’s face. Then the accused bid
the victim to walk. When they reached a grassy part, near the
pig pen which was about 12 meters away from the victim’s
house, the accused laid the victim on the grass, went on top of her an
took off her short pants and panty. The victim tried to resist by
moving her body but to no avail. The accused succeeded in
pursuing his evil design by forcibly inserting his penis inside the
victim’s private parts. Upon reaching home, the victim
discovered that her short pants and panty were filled with
blood. For almost ten days, she kept to herself the harrowing
experience, until she had the courage to tell her brother-in-law,
who in turn told the victim’s father about the rape of his
daughter. Thereafter, they did not waste time and immediately asked
the victim to see a doctor for medical examination. After the issuance
of the medical certificate, they went to the Isabela Municipal Station
and filed a compliant against the accused charging him with rape.

The trial court convicted the accused, stating that the

defense of “sweetheart theory” was a mere concoction of
the accused in order to exculpate him from criminal
liability. Appealing his conviction, the accused-appellant
argues that the trial court erred because no actual proof was
presented that the rape of the complainant actually happened
considering that although a medical certificate was presented,
the medico-legal officer who prepared the same was not
presented in court to explain the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the

medical certificate in evidence, although the medico-legal
officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to
testify on it

RULING:

Conviction affirmed. We place emphasis on the distinction

between admissibility of evidence and the probative value
thereof.
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is
not excluded by the law or these rules
(Section 3, Rule 128) or is competent. Since
admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance
and competence, admissibility is therefore, an affair of
logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be given
to such evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided in rule 133 and the
jurisprudence laid down by the Court. Thus, while evidence may be
admissible, it may be entitled to little or no weight at
all. Conversely, evidence which may have evidentiary weight
may be inadmissible because a special rule forbids its reception.
However, although the medical certificate is an exception to
the hearsay rule, hence admissible as evidence, it has very
little probative value due to the absence of the
examining physician. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the
prosecution relied solely on the medical certificate. In fact,
reliance was made on the testimony of the victim herself,
which standing alone even without the medical examination, is
sufficient evidence. The absence of medical findings by a
medico-legal officer does not disprove the occurrence of
rape. It is enough that the evidence on hand convinces the
court that conviction is proper. In the instant case, the victim’s
testimony alone is credible and sufficient to convict