Lawyerly

GR No. 172710

2009-10-09

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Accused-appellant failed to show any ill motive, on the part of the victim to fabricate such a story. The testimony of accused-appellant that the reason for the filing of these charges against him was because of the quarrel between her wife and AAA after the former learned about his illicit relationship with AAA is opposed to what he declared in open court that the only time his wife came to know about their relationship was after the complaints were filed because he told her about it when he was already in jail. Since there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the complainant to testify against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[34]

GR No. 152302

2004-06-08

PEOPLE v. JOSE OGA Y CALUNOD

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

The force employed in rape cases may be physical and actual or psychological and addressed to the mind of the complainant. Both have the same effect on the rape victim. In the latter case, however, we have consistently held that the force or intimidation must be of such character as to create real apprehension of dangerous consequences or serious bodily harm that would overpower the mind of the victim and prevent her from offering resistance.[11] The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. It is not necessary, therefore, that the force or intimidation employed be so great or be of such character that it can not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose of the accused.[12] Hence, the victim need not resist unto death or sustain physical injuries in the hands of the rapist.[13]

GR No. 140278

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. SONNY BAUTISTA Y LACANILAO

PANGANIBAN, J.

"A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."[40] Also noteworthy is the fact that it was the wife of appellant who (1) accompanied the victim and her mother to police authorities to report the incident and (2) informed them of his whereabouts.[41] Such reaction was obviously inconsistent with that of a wife whose trust was betrayed by her husband -- as the situation would have been, if he and the victim were indeed lovers.

GR No. 146956

2003-07-25

PEOPLE v. ROGER FEDERICO Y BUNGGAO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Thus, in People v. Dreu,[6] it was held:The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Well-settled is the rule that the threat of bodily injury, when made with the use of a deadly weapon such as a pistol, knife, ice pick or bolo, constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful desires of a rapist. In such cases, physical resistance need not be established since intimidation is exercised over the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. Thus, if resistance would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault so as to make the victim's submission to the sexual act voluntary.[7]

GR No. 133790

2002-08-01

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO CAÑAVERAL

QUISUMBING, J.

proof to support his defense.[24] He may substantiate his defense by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, and the like.[25] In one case, we upheld such a defense where testimonial evidence showed that the alleged rapist and his supposed victim were indeed lovers.[26] In this case, however, the records fail to disclose any proof whatsoever to support appellant's claim. Moreover, assuming arguendo that appellant could prove an amorous relationship with the victim, this fact is not tantamount to consent to rape. A sweetheart cannot be carnally embraced against her will, for love is not a license for lust.[27] We are

GR No. 120468

2001-08-15

PEOPLE v. LOPE LIWANAG Y BUENAVENTURA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The trial court ordered accused-appellant to pay complainant moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00. This award must be reduced to P50,000.00. The purpose of this award is not to enrich the victim but to compensate her for injuries to her feelings. Moreover, moral damages for rape is fixed at P50,000.00.[25]

GR No. 123542

2001-06-26

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO BULOS

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

The Court also takes into consideration the flight of accused-appellant the day after the rape, and his offer of marriage to the victim after the incident had been reported to the authorities. As a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage to the offended party is an admission of guilt.[29]

GR No. 133888

2001-03-01

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO Y ROSALES

PER CURIAM

Carefully sifting through the entire body of evidence presented in this case, we find nothing which would destroy the moral certainty of accused-appellant's guilt. While there may be some inconsistencies in the testimony of Lorielyn, these to our mind are minor inconsistencies which serve to strengthen her credibility as they are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood.[55] Minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as they may even tend to strengthen rather than weaken their credibility. Inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony, for they guard against memorized falsities.[56] Besides, a rape victim can not be expected to recall vividly all the sordid details of the violation committed against her virtue.

GR No. 135963

2000-11-20

PEOPLE v. NORBERTO SABADO

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

Through flight, one derogates the course of justice by avoiding arrest, detention, or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings.[21] In this case, appellant was able to evade arrest for more than three years. Clearly, his flight evinced a consciousness of guilt and a silent admission of culpability.[22] Indeed, "the wicked flee, when no man pursueth, but the innocent are bold as a lion."[23]

GR No. 131942

2000-10-05

PEOPLE v. CARLITO BAWANG

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Finally, the Court observed that while the trial court awarded an indemnity of P50,000.00, it did not award other damages which are due the victim in crimes of this nature. Myrna is also entitled to moral damages because under prevailing case law, moral damages are imposed in rape cases involving young girls between thirteen (13) and nineteen (19) years of age, taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine psyche.[60] Currently, moral damages for rape is fixed at P50,000.00.[61] Exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is likewise in order to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[62]

GR No. 127650

2000-08-25

PEOPLE v. RICARDO TOQUERO Y JACOBO

PARDO, J.

mental and physical suffering.[18] In addition, P50,000.00 is awarded to the complainant as civil indemnity ex-delicto.[19] WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, Branch 49, Urdaneta, convicting accused-appellant Ricardo Toquero y Jacobo of rape is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto. With costs.

GR No. 112692

2000-08-25

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO RESTOLES Y TUYO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

to the record. Those that deserve discussion, however, are really minor inconsistencies which do not affect the credibility of the witness. Rather, inconsistencies such as these serve to strengthen the credibility of the witness as they are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood.[20] For instance, accused-appellants make capital of Virginia's varying statements regarding the sequence in which the men raped her and the time each rapist took in consummating his sexual assault on her. Surely, in the situation she was in at the time, Virginia could not be

GR Nos. 121651-52

2000-08-16

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

"fn">[31] - …Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant's guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena we stated:[32]

	GR No. 172710 2009-10-09	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BUBAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant failed to show any ill motive, on the part of the victim to fabricate such a story. The testimony of accused-appellant that the reason for the filing of these charges against him was because of the quarrel between her wife and AAA after the former learned about his illicit relationship with AAA is opposed to what he declared in open court that the only time his wife came to know about their relationship was after the complaints were filed because he told her about it when he was already in jail. Since there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the complainant to testify against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[34]
	GR No. 152302 2004-06-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE OGA Y CALUNOD DAVIDE JR., CJ.
The force employed in rape cases may be physical and actual or psychological and addressed to the mind of the complainant. Both have the same effect on the rape victim. In the latter case, however, we have consistently held that the force or intimidation must be of such character as to create real apprehension of dangerous consequences or serious bodily harm that would overpower the mind of the victim and prevent her from offering resistance.[11] The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. It is not necessary, therefore, that the force or intimidation employed be so great or be of such character that it can not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose of the accused.[12] Hence, the victim need not resist unto death or sustain physical injuries in the hands of the rapist.[13]
	GR No. 140278 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SONNY BAUTISTA Y LACANILAO PANGANIBAN, J.
"A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."[40] Also noteworthy is the fact that it was the wife of appellant who (1) accompanied the victim and her mother to police authorities to report the incident and (2) informed them of his whereabouts.[41] Such reaction was obviously inconsistent with that of a wife whose trust was betrayed by her husband -- as the situation would have been, if he and the victim were indeed lovers.
	GR No. 146956 2003-07-25	PEOPLE v. ROGER FEDERICO Y BUNGGAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Thus, in People v. Dreu,[6] it was held:The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Well-settled is the rule that the threat of bodily injury, when made with the use of a deadly weapon such as a pistol, knife, ice pick or bolo, constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful desires of a rapist. In such cases, physical resistance need not be established since intimidation is exercised over the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. Thus, if resistance would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault so as to make the victim's submission to the sexual act voluntary.[7]
	GR No. 133790 2002-08-01	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO CAÑAVERAL QUISUMBING, J.
proof to support his defense.[24] He may substantiate his defense by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, and the like.[25] In one case, we upheld such a defense where testimonial evidence showed that the alleged rapist and his supposed victim were indeed lovers.[26] In this case, however, the records fail to disclose any proof whatsoever to support appellant's claim. Moreover, assuming arguendo that appellant could prove an amorous relationship with the victim, this fact is not tantamount to consent to rape. A sweetheart cannot be carnally embraced against her will, for love is not a license for lust.[27] We are
	GR No. 120468 2001-08-15	PEOPLE v. LOPE LIWANAG Y BUENAVENTURA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court ordered accused-appellant to pay complainant moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00. This award must be reduced to P50,000.00. The purpose of this award is not to enrich the victim but to compensate her for injuries to her feelings. Moreover, moral damages for rape is fixed at P50,000.00.[25]
	GR No. 123542 2001-06-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO BULOS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The Court also takes into consideration the flight of accused-appellant the day after the rape, and his offer of marriage to the victim after the incident had been reported to the authorities. As a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage to the offended party is an admission of guilt.[29]
	GR No. 133888 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO Y ROSALES PER CURIAM
Carefully sifting through the entire body of evidence presented in this case, we find nothing which would destroy the moral certainty of accused-appellant's guilt. While there may be some inconsistencies in the testimony of Lorielyn, these to our mind are minor inconsistencies which serve to strengthen her credibility as they are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood.[55] Minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as they may even tend to strengthen rather than weaken their credibility. Inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony, for they guard against memorized falsities.[56] Besides, a rape victim can not be expected to recall vividly all the sordid details of the violation committed against her virtue.
	GR No. 135963 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO SABADO DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Through flight, one derogates the course of justice by avoiding arrest, detention, or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings.[21] In this case, appellant was able to evade arrest for more than three years. Clearly, his flight evinced a consciousness of guilt and a silent admission of culpability.[22] Indeed, "the wicked flee, when no man pursueth, but the innocent are bold as a lion."[23]
	GR No. 131942 2000-10-05	PEOPLE v. CARLITO BAWANG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the Court observed that while the trial court awarded an indemnity of P50,000.00, it did not award other damages which are due the victim in crimes of this nature. Myrna is also entitled to moral damages because under prevailing case law, moral damages are imposed in rape cases involving young girls between thirteen (13) and nineteen (19) years of age, taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine psyche.[60] Currently, moral damages for rape is fixed at P50,000.00.[61] Exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is likewise in order to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.[62]
	GR No. 127650 2000-08-25	PEOPLE v. RICARDO TOQUERO Y JACOBO PARDO, J.
mental and physical suffering.[18] In addition, P50,000.00 is awarded to the complainant as civil indemnity ex-delicto.[19] WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, Branch 49, Urdaneta, convicting accused-appellant Ricardo Toquero y Jacobo of rape is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto. With costs.
	GR No. 112692 2000-08-25	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO RESTOLES Y TUYO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
to the record. Those that deserve discussion, however, are really minor inconsistencies which do not affect the credibility of the witness. Rather, inconsistencies such as these serve to strengthen the credibility of the witness as they are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood.[20] For instance, accused-appellants make capital of Virginia's varying statements regarding the sequence in which the men raped her and the time each rapist took in consummating his sexual assault on her. Surely, in the situation she was in at the time, Virginia could not be
	GR Nos. 121651-52 2000-08-16	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"fn">[31] - …Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant's guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena we stated:[32]

PEOPLE v. WILSON DREU