University of the Philippines College of Law

3D

Topic Examination of Witness

Case No. G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003
Case Name People v. Bisda
Ponente Per Curiam

RELEVANT FACTS

 Angela Soriano was a 5-year old prep student in a school in Marikina. She and her siblings had 2 yayas –
Wendy and Lea. Wendy was the niece of appellant Jenny Rose and the latter frequented the Soriano
residence to visit her niece.
 On Sept. 3, 1998, Angela went to the school bus after he class, but was picked up by Jenny Rose and Alma
Bisda who told her that her parents were waiting for her in Jollibee.
o Angela was hesitant at first but Alma held her hand tightly and poked a knife at her so she went
with them. Angela was kept in a house, sometimes tied, but was always given food and was
properly bathed.
 When Angela’s father arrived home, he asked where Angela was but was told that Angela was not home
yet. The father then went to the school only to be informed that Angela was picked up by 2 women, one
of them under the name Aileen Corpuz in the student pass. Oddly, the woman named Aileen had asked
how to transfer Angela to another school. The father then sought the help of the police and his friend Risa
Hontiveros.
 The day after the abduction, a woman called the landlady of the Soriano’s to say that she will speak with
Angela’s father. She called for second time and asked 5M in exchange for Angela. The Soriano’s tried to
bargain and said they could pay 50k instead but the woman on the phone only said that she could not
answer regarding their request because only her “boss” can.
 An anonymous source gave the police a tip that a woman who spoke about ransom and acted suspiciously
was seen in Paz St., Manila. The police then set-up their operations after seeing a woman (Alma) emerge
from a small house.
o Alma was seen leaving the house and going to a telephone store. As she was on the phone, the
kidnapper woman called the Sorianos. Police officers were stationed with the Sorianos and near
Alma, so when a car honked as Alma was on the phone, the police asked those stationed with the
Sorianos if they heard a car honk. The latter group answered in the affirmative so the police
proceeded to follow Alma. When she unlocked the door to the house a child was heard saying
“Tita ilabas mo ako.” Concluding it was Angela, the police went in to find and rescue the child.
Alma tried to escape to no avail.
o Alma, when confronted by Angela’s father said “Kuya, wag manghusga yung anak ko kinidnap din
nila.”
o Jenny Rose went to the police station and admitted that she was Alma’s cohort.
 The lower court, relying on Angela’s testimony, convicted Alma and Jenny of kidnapping with ransom and
were imposed the penalty of double death by lethal injection + indemnity.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
 University of the Philippines College of Law
3D

WON Angela NO.

understood the
nature of an oath On Rule 132, Sec. 1: An oath is defined as an outward pledge, given by the person taking it
for her to tell the that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to
truth? God. The object of the rule is to affect the conscience of the witness and thus compel him
to speak the truth, and also to lay him open to punishment for perjury in case he willfully
falsifies. A witness must be sensible to the obligation of an oath before he can be permitted
to testify. It is not, however, essential that he knows how he will be punished if he testify
falsely. Under modem statutes, a person is not disqualified as a witness simply because
he is unable to tell the nature of the oath administered to a witness. In order that one
may be competent as a witness, it is not necessary that he has a definite knowledge of
the difference between his duty to tell the truth after being sworn and before, or that he
be able to state it, but it is necessary that he be conscious that there is a difference.

It cannot be argued that simply because a child witness is not examined on the nature of
the oath and the need for her to tell the whole truth, the competency of the witness and
the truth of her testimony are impaired. If a party against whom a witness is presented
believes that the witness is incompetent or is not aware of his obligation and responsibility
to tell the truth and the consequence of him testifying falsely, such party may pray for
leave to conduct a voire dire examination on such witness to test his competency. The
court may motu proprio conduct the voir dire examination as The competency of a person
to take the prescribed oath is a question for the trial court to decide.

In the case at bar, Angela was 6 when she testified, She took an oath to "tell the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth" before she testified on direct examination. There
was nary a whimper of protest or objection on the part of the appellants to Angela's
competence as a witness and the prosecution's failure to propound questions to determine
whether Angela understood her obligation and responsibility of telling the truth respecting
the matter of her testimony before the court. The appellants did not even bother
requesting the trial court for leave to conduct a voir dire examination of Angela. After the
prosecution terminated its direct examination, the appellants thereafter cross-examined
Angela extensively and intensively on the matter of her testimony on direct examination.
It was only before the SC that the appellants raised the matter for the first time, that there
was failure on the part of the prosecution to examine Angela on the nature of her oath,
and to ascertain whether she had the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. It is too late
in the day for the appellants to raise the issue. If a party admits proof to be taken in a case
without an oath, after the testimony has been acted upon by the court, and made the
basis of a judgment, such party can no longer object to the admissibility of the said
testimony. He is estopped from raising the issue in the appellate court.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
3D

RULING

AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to indemnity.