In People v. Avendaño, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the reliability of a child witness in a double homicide case. The Court affirmed the conviction of Willerie Avendaño for two counts of homicide based primarily on the testimony of an eight-year-old boy who witnessed the crime. This decision emphasizes that children can be credible witnesses if they demonstrate the capacity to observe, recollect, and communicate, regardless of their age. It also stresses that while an admission made by the accused to the police, without the assistance of counsel, is inadmissible, the child’s clear and consistent testimony provided a sufficient basis for conviction. As such, it serves as a benchmark for when children’s statements carry significant weight in court.

Can an Eight-Year-Old’s Words Send a Killer to Jail? Avendaño’s Story

The gruesome events unfolded on July 29, 1997, when Remedios Castillo and her son Melvin were brutally murdered in their home. The key witness was Jeffre Castillo, Remedios’s eight-year-old son and Melvin’s brother, who survived the attack. He identified Willerie Avendaño, a neighbor, as the perpetrator, leading to Avendaño’s initial conviction for murder and subsequent sentencing to death by the Regional Trial Court. Jeffre’s testimony became the focal point of the case. Central to the court’s deliberation was the consideration of whether a child of tender age could provide reliable testimony sufficient for a conviction.

The defense challenged Jeffre’s credibility, pointing to his youth, his conduct in the courtroom (playing with a rubber band while on the stand), and the possibility of coaching by his father and other relatives. However, the Supreme Court underscored that age alone does not disqualify a witness. The critical factors are the child’s capacity of observation, capacity of recollection, and capacity of communication. If a child demonstrates sufficient intelligence to receive correct impressions, recollect them accurately, narrate them intelligently, and understand the moral duty to tell the truth, the child is considered competent to testify.

The Court found Jeffre’s testimony compelling, noting its firm, candid, and straightforward manner. Any inconsistencies were viewed as minor and inconsequential, ultimately strengthening his overall credibility. While Jeffre admitted to discussing the case with his father and relatives before testifying, the court saw this as natural, given the traumatic circumstances and the need for guidance. The Court’s position aligns with previous rulings acknowledging that individuals respond uniquely to frightening experiences. As such, no uniform behavior standard exists, particularly when witnessing a crime.

The Court also addressed other issues raised by the defense. While the warrantless arrest of Avendaño was questionable, he waived his right to challenge it by entering a “not guilty” plea during arraignment, submitting himself to the court’s jurisdiction. The verbal admission Avendaño allegedly made to the police without counsel was deemed inadmissible, as it violated his constitutional rights during custodial investigation as cited under Article III, Section 12 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, stating:

SEC. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Moreover, the T-shirt and shorts with alleged blood stains and the hunting knife seized from Avendaño’s residence without a search warrant were also deemed inadmissible due to the exclusionary rule as stipulated under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” These violations, however, did not negate the strength of Jeffre’s testimony, which stood as primary evidence.

Avendaño’s defense rested on alibi, claiming he was at home during the crime. The Court dismissed this, as his house was only 150-200 meters from the crime scene. The court emphasizes the significance of proximity, stating that, “for alibi to stand, it must be shown that not only was appellant somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.” The court also addressed the prosecution’s claim of treachery. While the trial court initially found treachery, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding no clear evidence that Avendaño deliberately planned the attack to ensure its execution without risk to himself. As such, the crime was downgraded from murder to homicide.

While the information filed charged Avendaño with two counts of murder in one information, this technical defect was waived since it was not objected to by the defense. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court modified Avendaño’s sentence to an indeterminate penalty for each count of homicide and also required the payment of civil indemnity and moral damages to the victims’ heirs.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether the testimony of an eight-year-old child, Jeffre Castillo, was credible and sufficient to convict Willerie Avendaño for the deaths of Remedios and Melvin Castillo. The defense questioned Jeffre’s capacity to understand the oath and provide reliable testimony due to his age.
What factors determine a child’s competence as a witness?	The key factors are the child’s capacity for observation, recollection, and communication. Essentially, the child must demonstrate the ability to perceive events accurately, remember them, narrate them coherently, and understand the duty to tell the truth.
Why was Avendaño’s alleged verbal admission to the police deemed inadmissible?	Avendaño’s alleged verbal admission was deemed inadmissible because it was obtained without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation. This violates his constitutional rights, which protect individuals from self-incrimination without proper legal guidance.
What is the exclusionary rule, and how did it apply in this case?	The exclusionary rule prohibits the admission of illegally obtained evidence in court. In this case, it led to the exclusion of the T-shirt, shorts, and knife seized from Avendaño’s house without a search warrant.
Why was the charge against Avendaño reduced from murder to homicide?	The charge was reduced because the court found no sufficient evidence of treachery. Treachery requires proof that the accused consciously adopted means to ensure the commission of the crime without any risk to himself.
What is the significance of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in Avendaño’s sentencing?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law allows the court to set a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment, rather than a fixed term. This provides the possibility of parole and rehabilitation, which influenced Avendaño’s final sentence.
Can a victim’s alibi be considered in homicide cases?	An alibi requires proof that the defendant was not only elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene. It is also considered as an inherently weak defense and should be backed up with the testimony of credible, unbiased witnesses.
How did the lack of objection to the flawed criminal information affect the outcome?	Since the information charged two deaths in a single document without any objection, the Court could impose separate penalties for each. The Supreme Court referenced People v. Conte, further stating that the defendant “should have moved to quash the complaint for being duplicitous,” and the failure to do so would result in him waiving the defect.

The Avendaño case illustrates the pivotal role child witnesses can play in legal proceedings, provided their testimonies meet the standards of credibility and coherence. It also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of the accused, as underscored in the proper evaluation of gathered evidence and proper investigation procedures.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE, VS. AVENDAÑO, G.R. No. 137407, January 28, 2003