THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintf-Appellee, vs. DANIEL HAYAG, Accused-Appellan HAYAG, Accused-Appellan .
Facts The complaint for rape was signed Esperanza. Her sister Virginia cered under oath that she translated, interpreted interpreted and explained the contents of the complaint faithfull! faithfull! and truthfull! through sign language to Esperanza. "t the preliminar! examinaon, the municipal #udge tested the capacit! of Virginia to communicate with Esperanza. Virginia admi$ed that there were deciencies in her mode of communicaon with Esperanza. "ccording to the sign language of Esperanza, as interpreted %! Virginia, the alleged rape was commi$ed. The case was elevated to the &ourt of First 'nstance where the provincial scal led an informaon for rape dated Fe%ruar! (), (*+. -aniel Ha!ag appealed from the decision the &F' of -avao del orte convicng him of rape, sentencing him to imprisonment imprisonment for the rest of his natural life. 'n this alleged rape of Esperanza, ), a farm girl and a deaf/mute, the case has %een simplied %! the admission of the accused, Ha!ag, 01, a married man with eight children, who nished grade six, that he had sexual intercourse with Esperanza nine mes %etween (*+1 and -ecem%er 2, (*+) in the town of &armen, -avao del orte. ISSUE: whether Virginia 3anga )4, a pu%lic school teacher, a college graduate and the vicm5s sister, correctl! and credi%l! interpreted and ver%alized ver%alized the sign language of Esperanza as meaning that Ha!ag raped Esperanza on 6cto%er )4, (*+) or whether credence should %e given to Ha!ag5s stor! that the sexual intercourse on that occasion, as on other occasions, was voluntar!. voluntar!. RULING: The trial court's u!"#e$t o% co$&ico$ is re&erse! a$! set asi!e( 6n the ground of reasona%le dou%t or the insu7cienc! of the prosecuon5s evidence, defendant -aniel Ha!ag is ac8ui$ed of the charge of rape.
" deaf mute is $ot i$co#)ete$t as witness. "ll persons who can perceive and perceiving can ma9e 9nown their percepon to others ma! %e witness. -eaf mutes are competent witnesses where the!: (.
&an unde unders rsta tand nd and appr appreci eciat ate e the sanc sanct! t! of an oath oath
).
&an comp compre rehen hend d the fact factss the! the! are are going going to tes tesf! f! on
.
&an commu communica nicate te their their ideas ideas through through a 8ualied 8ualied interpre interpreter ter
The "e$eral rule is that the e&i!e$ce o% a !ea%*#ute +ho ca$ e co##u$icate! +ith - si"$s #a- e ta.e$ throu"h a$ i$ter)reter +ho u$!ersta$!s such(
The pro%a%ilit! of error or fa%ricaon in such a case is ver! manifest. "s o%served %! ;usce Villa/3eal, that is a dangerous procedure for ascertaining the truth especiall! in a case where the li%ert! of an accused is at sta9e. The court and the accused have no means of chec9ing the accurac! of the ver%alizaon made %! the interpreter interpreter who is herself interested interested in sending the accused to prison. the case for the prosecuon was irrepara%l! impaired %! the inconsistencies commi$ed %! the complainant5s mother, erent dates. Then, she reced her rst a7davit and swore in a second a7davit and during the preliminar! examinaon that onl! one rape was commi$ed. 6n the witness stand, she declared that the rape was commi$ed commi$ed on December 4, 1972 %ut on cross/examinaon cross/examinaon she declared that her daughter was a%used on Ocober 26, 1972. &ontrar! to the prosecuon5s theor!,
