Lawyerly

GR No. 177357

2012-10-17

MENDOZA, J.

The failure to immediately report the dastardly acts to her family or to the authorities at the soonest possible time or her failure to immediately change her clothes is not enough reason to cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of Delos Reyes. This Court has repeatedly held that delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim.[41] Further, it has been written that a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness.[42]

GR No. 177136

2008-06-30

PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN

TINGA, J,

Especially in cases where, as in this case, both the offender and the offended party are living under the same roof and are thus expected to give solace and protection to each other, the offender can easily build an atmosphere of psychological terror that effectively numbs the victim to silence.[34] In these cases, it is fear, not reason, which abounds in the mind of the victim both at the time of the assaults and thereafter. Inasmuch as intimidation is addressed to the victim's mind, response thereto and the effect thereof naturally cannot be measured against any hard-and-fast rule such that it must be viewed in the context of the victim's perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time immediately thereafter.[35]

GR No. 178066

2008-02-06

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ZAMORAGA

TINGA, J,

Appellant offers an alibi to evade liability. While he claims the impossibility of his having committed the rapes on the ground that he was on those dates employed in faraway places, he nevertheless admits and so does his witness, BBB that the place where he retired after work and the place where the rapes occurred were only two or three kilometers away from each other.[34] No other principle in criminal law jurisprudence is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses as it is prone to facile fabrication. It is therefore received in court with much caution and for it to prevail, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it happened, and not merely that he was somewhere else.[35] The records show that such is not the case here as appellant failed to adduce an iota of satisfactory evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be in AAA's house at or about the same time the rape occurred.

GR No. 176734

2008-01-28

PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO

TINGA, J,

To begin with, the prosecution is under no burden to establish acceptable reasons or satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting a rape. Settled is the rule that delay or hesitation in reporting a case of rape due to threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim.[47] Neither does such delay indicate deceit or a fabricated insinuation inasmuch as it is common that a rape victim prefers silence because of fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma stemming from the abuse.[48] With particular regard to incestuous rapes, since the perpetrator in these cases is a parent of the victim, he is able to pervert whatever moral ascendancy and influence he has over the victim in order to intimidate the latter.[49] Hence, even in the absence of verbal threats against the victim's life, the parent molester's moral ascendancy and influence take the place of intimidation,[50] especially so when they are living under the same roof.[51]

GR No. 176734

2008-01-28

PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO

TINGA, J,

No other principle in criminal law jurisprudence is more settled than that alibi is the frailest of all defenses as it is prone to facile fabrication. It is therefore received in court with much caution and for it to prevail, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it happened, and not merely that he was somewhere else.[61] The records show that such is not the case here as appellant failed to adduce an iota of satisfactory evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be in his house at or about the same time the rape occurred. What stands out is that the evidence for the defense does not negate appellant's presence at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the offense.

GR No. 176734

2008-01-28

PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO

TINGA, J,

Indeed, it would take a great amount of moral depravity for a young woman to concoct an ugly story that would not only drag herself and her family to a lifetime of shame but also possibly put her own father for the rest of his remaining life in prison.[62]

GR NO. 176153

2007-09-21

PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In this case, AAA unhesitatingly pointed to appellant as her aggressor. There was not an iota of doubt in her mind that it was her own father who committed the atrocious crime against her person. It is quite difficult to believe that an unsophisticated girl such as AAA would brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, let alone her own father, if the charge were not true.[28] And even if we were to believe appellant's claim that he once reprimanded AAA over the company she kept, we find it hard to believe that in order to get even, she went as far as to invent a criminal charge that could very well lead her own father to his death and deprive not only herself but her siblings as well of the only parent left to them. As this Court had previously declared

GR No. 122479

2000-12-04

PEOPLE v. ELLESOR T. SALAZAR

PARDO, J.

A charge of rape is a serious matter with pernicious consequences for accused and complainant.[26] It is with the greatest care and caution that the Supreme Court examines the testimony of the complainant to determine its veracity in light of human nature and experience.[27]

GR Nos. 121651-52

2000-08-16

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

[19]19 People v. Reynaldo Ponado, G.R. No. 130334, 28 July 1999, 311 SCRA 529, citing People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658 [1996]; People v. Dones, 254 SCRA 696 [1996].19

GR No. 117324

2000-04-27

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO GUIWAN Y BAGTONG

BELLOSILLO, J.

We agree with accused-appellant that the Information against him charges only one (1) rape which he allegedly committed on 8 September 1990. He cannot therefore be convicted of five (5) counts of rape committed on other dates. But his conviction for raping his daughter Rochelle on 8 September 1990 must be sustained as the trial court found the testimony of Rochelle straightforward and almost flawless to the smallest detail. Hence, we find no reason to withhold concurrence to his conviction. As the trial court observed, Rochelle was composed and consistent throughout her entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy interrogation.[5] And a barrio lass, still in her teens, innocent and naive to the ways of the world is not likely to accuse her own father of so serious a crime as rape if it was not the plain truth, or if her motive was not purely to bring her sexual ravisher to justice.[6] The insinuation of accused-appellant that Rochelle only filed the case against him because she got mad when he scolded her for preferring her classmates over her family is hardly believable. Parental punishment is not a good reason for a daughter to falsely charge her father with rape.[7] Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to fabricate a story which would put her own father for the most of his remaining life in jail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[8] A review of the totality of the evidence draws us to the conclusion that no material facts that may alter accused-appellant's conviction were overlooked or misunderstood by the trial court.

GR Nos. 125125-27

2000-02-04

PEOPLE v. MELANDRO NICOLAS Y FAVELLA

BELLOSILLO, J.

The pattern of instilling fear, utilized by the perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission, is evident in virtually all cases that have reached this Court. It is through this fear that the perpetrator hopes to create a climate of extreme psychological terror which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and force her to submit to repeated acts of rape over a period of time. The relationship of the victim to the perpetrator magnifies this terror, because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim.[11]

	GR No. 177357 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. VAL DELOS REYES MENDOZA, J.
The failure to immediately report the dastardly acts to her family or to the authorities at the soonest possible time or her failure to immediately change her clothes is not enough reason to cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of Delos Reyes. This Court has repeatedly held that delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim.[41] Further, it has been written that a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness.[42]
	GR No. 177136 2008-06-30	PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN TINGA, J,
Especially in cases where, as in this case, both the offender and the offended party are living under the same roof and are thus expected to give solace and protection to each other, the offender can easily build an atmosphere of psychological terror that effectively numbs the victim to silence.[34] In these cases, it is fear, not reason, which abounds in the mind of the victim both at the time of the assaults and thereafter. Inasmuch as intimidation is addressed to the victim's mind, response thereto and the effect thereof naturally cannot be measured against any hard-and-fast rule such that it must be viewed in the context of the victim's perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time immediately thereafter.[35]
	GR No. 178066 2008-02-06	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ZAMORAGA TINGA, J,
Appellant offers an alibi to evade liability. While he claims the impossibility of his having committed the rapes on the ground that he was on those dates employed in faraway places, he nevertheless admits and so does his witness, BBB that the place where he retired after work and the place where the rapes occurred were only two or three kilometers away from each other.[34] No other principle in criminal law jurisprudence is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses as it is prone to facile fabrication. It is therefore received in court with much caution and for it to prevail, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it happened, and not merely that he was somewhere else.[35] The records show that such is not the case here as appellant failed to adduce an iota of satisfactory evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be in AAA's house at or about the same time the rape occurred.
	GR No. 176734 2008-01-28	PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO TINGA, J,
To begin with, the prosecution is under no burden to establish acceptable reasons or satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting a rape. Settled is the rule that delay or hesitation in reporting a case of rape due to threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim.[47] Neither does such delay indicate deceit or a fabricated insinuation inasmuch as it is common that a rape victim prefers silence because of fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma stemming from the abuse.[48] With particular regard to incestuous rapes, since the perpetrator in these cases is a parent of the victim, he is able to pervert whatever moral ascendancy and influence he has over the victim in order to intimidate the latter.[49] Hence, even in the absence of verbal threats against the victim's life, the parent molester's moral ascendancy and influence take the place of intimidation,[50] especially so when they are living under the same roof.[51]
	GR No. 176734 2008-01-28	PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO TINGA, J,
No other principle in criminal law jurisprudence is more settled than that alibi is the frailest of all defenses as it is prone to facile fabrication. It is therefore received in court with much caution and for it to prevail, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it happened, and not merely that he was somewhere else.[61] The records show that such is not the case here as appellant failed to adduce an iota of satisfactory evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be in his house at or about the same time the rape occurred. What stands out is that the evidence for the defense does not negate appellant's presence at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the offense.
	GR No. 176734 2008-01-28	PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO TINGA, J,
Indeed, it would take a great amount of moral depravity for a young woman to concoct an ugly story that would not only drag herself and her family to a lifetime of shame but also possibly put her own father for the rest of his remaining life in prison.[62]
	GR NO. 176153 2007-09-21	PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this case, AAA unhesitatingly pointed to appellant as her aggressor. There was not an iota of doubt in her mind that it was her own father who committed the atrocious crime against her person. It is quite difficult to believe that an unsophisticated girl such as AAA would brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, let alone her own father, if the charge were not true.[28] And even if we were to believe appellant's claim that he once reprimanded AAA over the company she kept, we find it hard to believe that in order to get even, she went as far as to invent a criminal charge that could very well lead her own father to his death and deprive not only herself but her siblings as well of the only parent left to them. As this Court had previously declared
	GR No. 122479 2000-12-04	PEOPLE v. ELLESOR T. SALAZAR PARDO, J.
A charge of rape is a serious matter with pernicious consequences for accused and complainant.[26] It is with the greatest care and caution that the Supreme Court examines the testimony of the complainant to determine its veracity in light of human nature and experience.[27]
	GR Nos. 121651-52 2000-08-16	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[19]19 People v. Reynaldo Ponado, G.R. No. 130334, 28 July 1999, 311 SCRA 529, citing People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658 [1996]; People v. Dones, 254 SCRA 696 [1996].19
	GR No. 117324 2000-04-27	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO GUIWAN Y BAGTONG BELLOSILLO, J.
We agree with accused-appellant that the Information against him charges only one (1) rape which he allegedly committed on 8 September 1990. He cannot therefore be convicted of five (5) counts of rape committed on other dates. But his conviction for raping his daughter Rochelle on 8 September 1990 must be sustained as the trial court found the testimony of Rochelle straightforward and almost flawless to the smallest detail. Hence, we find no reason to withhold concurrence to his conviction. As the trial court observed, Rochelle was composed and consistent throughout her entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy interrogation.[5] And a barrio lass, still in her teens, innocent and naive to the ways of the world is not likely to accuse her own father of so serious a crime as rape if it was not the plain truth, or if her motive was not purely to bring her sexual ravisher to justice.[6] The insinuation of accused-appellant that Rochelle only filed the case against him because she got mad when he scolded her for preferring her classmates over her family is hardly believable. Parental punishment is not a good reason for a daughter to falsely charge her father with rape.[7] Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to fabricate a story which would put her own father for the most of his remaining life in jail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[8] A review of the totality of the evidence draws us to the conclusion that no material facts that may alter accused-appellant's conviction were overlooked or misunderstood by the trial court.
	GR Nos. 125125-27 2000-02-04	PEOPLE v. MELANDRO NICOLAS Y FAVELLA BELLOSILLO, J.
The pattern of instilling fear, utilized by the perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission, is evident in virtually all cases that have reached this Court. It is through this fear that the perpetrator hopes to create a climate of extreme psychological terror which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and force her to submit to repeated acts of rape over a period of time. The relationship of the victim to the perpetrator magnifies this terror, because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim.[11]

PEOPLE v. APOLONIO MELIVO Y VALETE