that what she did was merely to confirm the leading questions propounded to her by
the prosecutor.
The Court does not agree. The Court quotes with approval the CA's ruling, thus:
Also, that AAA was unable to narrate the rape with case without the leading questions
propounded by the prosecutor and the trial court is not unnatural. To be sure, a court
cannot expect a rape victim to remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage,
especially so since she might in fact have been trying not to remember them. Thus, it is
palpable that AAA remembered the painful sexual intercourse forced upon her by the
accused-appellant. She just did not want to replay the whole rape in her mind and
simply gave her terse but sufficient answers to the questions posed by the prosecution
and the trial judge during her direct examination.33
chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary
cralawred
Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail.34 For such
an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be
worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological
wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her
conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget.35 Thus, a rape victim cannot be
expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and
horrifying experience she had undergone.36
ChanRoblesVi rtua lawlib rary
As to the leading questions asked by the prosecutor during AAA's direct examination, it
is too late in the day for accused-appellant to object to the manner of questioning
adopted by the public prosecutor. Accused-appellant should have interposed his
objections in the course of the oral examination of AAA, as soon as the grounds
therefor became reasonably apparent.37 As it were, he raised not a whimper of protest
as the public prosecutor recited his offer or propounded questions to AAA. Worse,
accused-appellant subjected AAA to cross-examination on the very matters covered by
the questions being objected to;38 therefore, he is barred from arguing that the victim
was "only made to confirm the leading questions propounded to her which are all in line
with the theory of the prosecution."
Moreover, it is true that, as a rule, leading questions are not allowed in direct
examination. However, Section 10 (c) of Rule 132 allows leading questions to be asked
of a witness who is a child of tender years, especially when said witness has difficulty
giving an intelligible answer, as when the latter has not reached that level of education
necessary to grasp the simple meaning of a question, moreso, its underlying gravity.
This exception is now embodied in Section 2039 of the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, which took effect on December 15, 2000. Under Section 4 thereof, a child
witness is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen
(18) years. In the instant case, AAA was only eleven (11) years old when she took the
witness stand. Thus, the decision of the RTC to allow the prosecution to ask AAA
leading questions is justified.
Accused-appellant likewise posits that AAA's actuations immediately after her supposed
rape, wherein she showed no outrage or fear towards accused-appellant, and that her
belated display of fear when she took the witness stand seven years after the crime
was supposedly committed are not the natural reaction of the victim of a crime.
However, this Court has recognized the fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected