"The Court of Appeals, at the outset, affirmed that the lone survivor, Cherry Mae Bantiway, is a competent witness although she is suffering from cerebral palsy, citing the rule that any child can be a competent witness if he/she can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his/her perception to others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he/she is examined. The Court of Appeals held that even if Cherry Mae has cerebral palsy, she can still perceive and make known her perception, as per Dr. Hernandez's explanation in her testimony, which is quoted below:
Q:
You said that what you saw in Cherry Mae Bantiway was typical of...?
A:
Cerebral palsy, Sir.
Q:
Will you please explain to us what kind of a sickness or diseases (sic) is this?
A:
Cerebral palsy is a disease of the brain characterized by a non-progressive motor imperment (sic), non-progressive means to say it will not become worst and it is solely focused on the motor system movement, Sir.
x x x x
Q:
In other words, Dra. this (sic) patient's (sic) can still perceive and make known their perception?
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q:
This is brain damage which involves the motor nerves?
A:
The motor system, Sir.
Q:
And aside from the motor system the brain is functioning?
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q:
In other words, the damage of the brain is not total?
A:
Yes, Sir"
x x x x
"Q:
You said that you made this examination, did you find out whether she has the ability to recall the events that happen (sic) in the past?
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q:
You know you've been told that this particular patient was the victim of violence, is that correct?
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q:
And in accordance with your examination, did you find out whether she can recall some events which happened when injuries were inflicted on her?
A:
I only asked her if she had a playmate and she said she has a playmate a young boy, and where is he now because I did not like to get it from her really like to lead her into a question but I asked her whether she had a playmate and she said yes and where was your playmate now, he's not there anymore and what happen (sic) to him she called her baby "ading" and where is he now she told me that he was hit on the head, Sir.
Q:
How did she tell you?
A:
She told me "napakpak sa ulo" and she even gestured but that's all, I did not like to deal more or other things, Sir.
Q:
In other words Dra it was obvious at the time that she could recall some incident that happened?
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q:
Now this patient Cherry Bantiway Dra in your opinion was she capable of concocting events or manipulating facts considering her mental condition?
A:
No, Sir.[37]
The Court of Appeals found no compelling reason to overturn the RTC decision because there is no clear basis that the latter erred in finding that Cherry Mae is a competent witness. The Court of Appeals stressed that the trial judge is in the best position to determine the competence as well as the credibility of Cherry Mae as a witness since the trial judge has the unparalleled opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record. On the allegation that Cherry Mae is mentally retarded as opined by Dr. Francisco Hernandez, the Court of Appeals held that this is insufficient reason to disqualify a witness, for a mental retardate who has the ability to make perceptions known to others can still be a competent witness.
Regarding appellants' allegations that Cherry Mae was not able to identify them in the initial stages of the investigation, the Court of Appeals stated that at the time of these initial confrontations at the hospital and at the police station, Cherry Mae had just survived from the incident where there were brutal killings and where she herself had sustained a fatal wound on her head. As such, the Court of Appeals noted that the condition of the child, being already afflicted with cerebral palsy, was aggravated by the head injuries inflicted on her, not to mention the state of shock and fear she might have been experiencing at that time. Thus, the Court of Appeals considered that the purported non-identification by child of the appellants at the initial stages of the investigation is of no moment and is not fatal to the prosecution's case.[38]
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals held that where there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witness to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate him/her in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence. In the case at bar, there is no showing that the witnesses for the prosecution had any motive to testify falsely against the appellants."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS.
EDUARDO GOLIDAN Y COTO-ONG, FRANCIS NACIONALES Y FERNANDEZ, AND TEDDY OGSILA Y TAHIL, ACCUSED, EDUARDO GOLIDAN Y COTO-ONG AND FRANCIS NACIONALES Y FERNANDEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
G.R. No. 205307, January 11, 2018.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63799