PEOPLE V. PADRIGONE (REMEDIAL)

Pedrigone assails the procedural irregularities committed by the prosecution and by the trial court. He claims that the prosecution SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE by not presenting Rowena, the rape victim, when the latter should have had her sane moments. As a consequence, the trial court deprived Pedrigone of the opportunity to cross-examine her when she was allegedly declared before the Chief of Police that it was only Pedrigone who raped her which declaration became the basis for the latter's conviction.

Besides, the non-presentation of Rowena on the witness stand cannot be considered as SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. Under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced does not apply if:

1. the evidence is at the disposal of both parties;
2. the suppression was not willful;
3. it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and
4. the suppression is an exercise of a privilege.

Plainly, there was no suppression of evidence in this case.

FIRST: The defense had the opportunity to subpoena Rowena even if the prosecutor did not present her as a witness. Instead, the defense failed to call her to the witness stand.

SECOND: Rowena was certified to be suffering from Acute Psychotic Depressive Condition and thus, cannot stand judicial proceedings yet. The non-presentation therefore, of Rowena was not willful.

THIRD: In any case, while Rowena was the victim, Nimfa was also present and in fact witnessed the violation committed on her sister.