Lawyerly

GR No. 184922

2011-02-23

BRION, J.

The CA affirmed the RTC Judgment. It ruled that as AAA was a child victimized by her own father, her testimony should be given full weight and credit, more so since it was categorical, straightforward and corroborated by the findings of a medico-legal officer. It held that the lack of contusions on AAA's body did not negate rape; the fact that the appellant is AAA's father who exercised moral ascendancy over her substituted for actual violence. It observed that lust is no respecter of time and place; hence, rape could be committed even in the bedroom of the appellant's parents. Finally, the CA, citing People v. Cresencia Tabugoca,[11] agreed with the RTC that it was unbelievable that AAA would make up rape charges against her own father just because he had spanked her. The CA agreed with the RTC that the appellant's claim (i.e., that he had never hurt any of his children until the spanking incident) was belied by his own son BBB, a defense witness, who testified that appellant was cruel and would hurt his children arbitrarily, especially when he was drunk. The CA affirmed the RTC's Judgment and additionally required the appellant pay the private complainant P25,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.[12]

GR No. 177136

2008-06-30

PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN

TINGA, J,

To begin with, let it be emphasized that delay in reporting a case of rape is not always to be taken as an ostensible badge of a fabricated charge.[30] A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.[31] In this case, AAA's reluctance and hesitation in breaking her agonizing silence were sufficiently established by her testimony that appellant was able to instill fear in her by threatening to kill her mother should the incidents be made known to anyone. Such intimidation is sufficient to cower AAA and make her choose to suffer privately instead of disclosing her sordid tale of abuse in the hands of appellant. Settled is the theory that delay or hesitation in reporting the abuse due to the threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim,[32] since it is not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant.[33]

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. 146111

2004-02-23

PEOPLE v. ROLENDO GAUDIA

PUNO, J.

We also find the award of exemplary damages made by the lower court in favor of complainant as proper because complainant has been correctly granted moral damages and the offense against her was committed with the aggravating circumstance[57] of age. However, the amount awarded must be reduced to P25,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[58]

GR No. 136849

2003-10-23

PEOPLE v. NESTOR CODERES Y ABLAZA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is true that in a long line of cases,[11] the most recent of which is People vs. Servano,[12] we held that in rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation; that ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority as well as the children's duty to obey and observe respect towards their parents; that such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children; that abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter's will, thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[13]

GR No. 140781

2003-05-08

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO METIN

QUISUMBING, J.

The proposition that private complainant consented to appellant's sexual advances, negating force and intimidation, is too trite to be seriously considered. That there was force and intimidation was clear from the testimony of private complainant. There was force when appellant pressed Emelyn to the floor despite her plea of "Huwag po."[37] There was intimidation when he threatened to kill her if she shouted.[38] Intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of rape and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that it produces fear fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident.[39] Here, private complainant succumbed to appellant's abuses out of fear, not only for herself but also for the life and safety of her mother, her siblings and her grandparents.[40] Such fear is heightened by the fact that appellant, when intoxicated, has the habit of grabbing a bolo.[41]

GR No. 144034

2002-05-28

PEOPLE v. MARIO MASCARIÑAS

BELLOSILLO, J.

We find the motive imputed by accused-appellant against his daughter Maries highly outrageous. Indeed, mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would not only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their families but also bring their fathers into the gallows of death.[9] Even when blinded by hatred and consumed with revenge it requires a certain degree of psychological depravity for a young woman of tender years to concoct a story which would subject her to a lifetime of gossip and scandal among neighbors and friends.[10]

GR No. 135242

2002-04-19

PEOPLE v. RICARDO BAYLEN

QUISUMBING, J.

That complainant did not cry during the sexual assault does not disprove rape. There is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted by a startling incident like sexual abuse. Some may shout, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility.[20] On her part, complainant's testimony shows she was cowed into silence because of appellant's threat against her life and her family. We note that she did not go home that night because she was afraid. For one, she was warned by appellant that if she told her mother about the incident, appellant would carry out his threat. She was still trembling with fear when found the following day. That complainant did not utter any curse against appellant during their confrontation is not proof of her consent to a vile act nor condonation of the abuser's offense. Victims react differently under emotional stress especially after a traumatic experience. In many instances, rape victims simply suffer in silence.[21]

GR No. 136254

2000-12-04

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DAGPIN Y PAUSAL

BELLOSILLO, J.

The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown nor uncommon.[12] Such delay and initial reluctance do not impair her credibility when satisfactorily explained.[13] A plausible reason to incur delay is the death threat from the accused[14] and in many instances, rape victims simply suffer in silence.[15] Ellen's lips were sealed for almost two (2) months due to accused-appellant's death threats. We find such circumstance an adequate reason for her delay in revealing her misfortune.

GR Nos. 121651-52

2000-08-16

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

[10]10 People v. Emil Babera y Rabanera, G.R. No. 130609, 30 May 2000, p. 8, citing People v. Dacoba, 289 SCRA 265 [1998] and People v. Gagto, 253 SCRA 455 [1996].10

	GR No. 184922 2011-02-23	PEOPLE v. PORFERIO MASAGCA BRION, J.
The CA affirmed the RTC Judgment. It ruled that as AAA was a child victimized by her own father, her testimony should be given full weight and credit, more so since it was categorical, straightforward and corroborated by the findings of a medico-legal officer. It held that the lack of contusions on AAA's body did not negate rape; the fact that the appellant is AAA's father who exercised moral ascendancy over her substituted for actual violence. It observed that lust is no respecter of time and place; hence, rape could be committed even in the bedroom of the appellant's parents. Finally, the CA, citing People v. Cresencia Tabugoca,[11] agreed with the RTC that it was unbelievable that AAA would make up rape charges against her own father just because he had spanked her. The CA agreed with the RTC that the appellant's claim (i.e., that he had never hurt any of his children until the spanking incident) was belied by his own son BBB, a defense witness, who testified that appellant was cruel and would hurt his children arbitrarily, especially when he was drunk. The CA affirmed the RTC's Judgment and additionally required the appellant pay the private complainant P25,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.[12]
	GR No. 177136 2008-06-30	PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN TINGA, J,
To begin with, let it be emphasized that delay in reporting a case of rape is not always to be taken as an ostensible badge of a fabricated charge.[30] A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.[31] In this case, AAA's reluctance and hesitation in breaking her agonizing silence were sufficiently established by her testimony that appellant was able to instill fear in her by threatening to kill her mother should the incidents be made known to anyone. Such intimidation is sufficient to cower AAA and make her choose to suffer privately instead of disclosing her sordid tale of abuse in the hands of appellant. Settled is the theory that delay or hesitation in reporting the abuse due to the threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim,[32] since it is not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant.[33]
	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. 146111 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. ROLENDO GAUDIA PUNO, J.
We also find the award of exemplary damages made by the lower court in favor of complainant as proper because complainant has been correctly granted moral damages and the offense against her was committed with the aggravating circumstance[57] of age. However, the amount awarded must be reduced to P25,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[58]
	GR No. 136849 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. NESTOR CODERES Y ABLAZA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is true that in a long line of cases,[11] the most recent of which is People vs. Servano,[12] we held that in rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation; that ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority as well as the children's duty to obey and observe respect towards their parents; that such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children; that abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter's will, thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[13]
	GR No. 140781 2003-05-08	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO METIN QUISUMBING, J.
The proposition that private complainant consented to appellant's sexual advances, negating force and intimidation, is too trite to be seriously considered. That there was force and intimidation was clear from the testimony of private complainant. There was force when appellant pressed Emelyn to the floor despite her plea of "Huwag po."[37] There was intimidation when he threatened to kill her if she shouted.[38] Intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of rape and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that it produces fear fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident.[39] Here, private complainant succumbed to appellant's abuses out of fear, not only for herself but also for the life and safety of her mother, her siblings and her grandparents.[40] Such fear is heightened by the fact that appellant, when intoxicated, has the habit of grabbing a bolo.[41]
	GR No. 144034 2002-05-28	PEOPLE v. MARIO MASCARIÑAS BELLOSILLO, J.
We find the motive imputed by accused-appellant against his daughter Maries highly outrageous. Indeed, mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would not only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their families but also bring their fathers into the gallows of death.[9] Even when blinded by hatred and consumed with revenge it requires a certain degree of psychological depravity for a young woman of tender years to concoct a story which would subject her to a lifetime of gossip and scandal among neighbors and friends.[10]
	GR No. 135242 2002-04-19	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BAYLEN QUISUMBING, J.
That complainant did not cry during the sexual assault does not disprove rape. There is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted by a startling incident like sexual abuse. Some may shout, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility.[20] On her part, complainant's testimony shows she was cowed into silence because of appellant's threat against her life and her family. We note that she did not go home that night because she was afraid. For one, she was warned by appellant that if she told her mother about the incident, appellant would carry out his threat. She was still trembling with fear when found the following day. That complainant did not utter any curse against appellant during their confrontation is not proof of her consent to a vile act nor condonation of the abuser's offense. Victims react differently under emotional stress especially after a traumatic experience. In many instances, rape victims simply suffer in silence.[21]
	GR No. 136254 2000-12-04	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DAGPIN Y PAUSAL BELLOSILLO, J.
The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown nor uncommon.[12] Such delay and initial reluctance do not impair her credibility when satisfactorily explained.[13] A plausible reason to incur delay is the death threat from the accused[14] and in many instances, rape victims simply suffer in silence.[15] Ellen's lips were sealed for almost two (2) months due to accused-appellant's death threats. We find such circumstance an adequate reason for her delay in revealing her misfortune.
	GR Nos. 121651-52 2000-08-16	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO WATIMAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[10]10 People v. Emil Babera y Rabanera, G.R. No. 130609, 30 May 2000, p. 8, citing People v. Dacoba, 289 SCRA 265 [1998] and People v. Gagto, 253 SCRA 455 [1996].10

PEOPLE v. CRESENCIO TABUGOCA