Lawyerly

GR No. 175275

2008-02-19

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Moreover, a rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since, customarily, Filipino children revere and respect their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families that it is unthinkable for a daughter to concoct brazenly a story of rape against her father, if such were not true.[13] Indeed, courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who fell victim to sexual assault, especially a minor, particularly in incestuous rape as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and bear the concomitant shame, humiliation, and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not for the purpose of condemning injustice and ensuring that the offender is punished.[14]

GR No. 141782

2001-12-14

PEOPLE v. RENATO FLORES

PANGANIBAN, J.

There is no standard form of behavior when a person is confronted by a shocking, harrowing and unexpected incident. The workings of the human mind, when placed under emotional stress, are unpredictable. Rape is a traumatic experience, and the shock concomitant with it may linger for a while. Oftentimes, the victim would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private, rather than reveal her shame to the world or risk the rapist's carrying out his threat to harm her.[36]

GR Nos. 139959-60

2001-11-22

PEOPLE v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS Y ARSITE

MENDOZA, J.

First, we have held that no standard form of behavior may be expected when a person is confronted by a shocking or a harrowing and unexpected incident, for the workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[20] Second, in rape cases, the force required need not be overpowering or irresistible when employed. What is necessary is that the force be sufficient to accomplish the purpose which the accused had in mind.[21] The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself because of fear.[22] Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective.[23] The victim categorically described the force and intimidation exerted when she was ravished. She tried to resist by kicking accused-appellant. But he was no match for her. She wanted to scream but her mouth was covered and he pinned her down on the bed.[24]

GR Nos. 139959-60

2001-11-22

PEOPLE v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS Y ARSITE

MENDOZA, J.

Nor was there any undue delay on the part of Salvacion in reporting the rape. On March 22, 1998, just 12 days after she was first raped and four days after she was raped for the second time, she reported the incident to her husband and later to the police. The alleged delay was naturally caused by accused-appellant's threat that he would kill her if she told her husband about the incident. The failure of a complainant to immediately report the rapes to her family or the police authorities due to threats does not detract from the victim's credibility.[29] Rape is a harrowing experience and the shock concomitant to it may linger for a while. Oftentimes, victims would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal their shame to the world or risk the rapist's making good the threat to do them harm.[30] The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe Salvacion's demeanor during the trial, found her testimony plausible and credible. It correctly held:That she did not report to her husband or to the police the sexual assaults immediately after March 10 and 18 has been thus explained satisfactorily by her. Besides, it is not uncommon for young women like Salvacion to conceal for sometime assaults on their virtue because of shame and also because she was warned by accused not to tell her husband. The silence of Salvacion and her failure to reveal the incidents to her husband and report to the police until several days later do not necessarily mean that she was not sexually molested and that the charges against accused are baseless, untrue and fabricated. Silence is not an odd behavior of victims of rape. (People v. Dones, G.R. No. 108743, March 13, 1996)

GR No. 139904

2001-10-12

PEOPLE v. CONRADO MERCADO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

"fn">[30] With more reason, her testimony would suffice where it is corroborated by other evidence in its material points. Although, admittedly, Larry Torralba did not witness the actual rape, his testimony constitutes circumstantial proof which, taken together with other evidence, more specifically, the discovery of the articles of clothing and rope inside accused-appellant's hut, tends to prove the commission of the crime. xxx. Conviction for rape may be based on circumstantial evidence when the victim cannot testify on the actual commission of the rape as she was rendered unconscious when the act was committed, provided that more than one circumstance is duly proved and that the totality or the unbroken chain of the circumstances proven lead to no other logical conclusion than the appellant's guilt of the crime charged. xxx.[31] In the face of the victim's clear and positive account of the commission of the crime, accused-appellant can only offer the defense of denial and alibi. Unfortunately, the place where accused-appellant allegedly was at the time of the rape was only three kilometers

GR Nos. 142602-05

2001-10-03

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

MENDOZA, J.

We have long since held that the lone testimony of the offended party in a rape case, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[14] For, in truth, no woman, especially one of tender age, would contrive a charge of sexual abuse and undergo the degradation and humiliation of a public trial, where she would be forced to reveal the lurid details of how she was violated, if she had not actually been raped or been moved by a desire to obtain justice and vindicate her honor. This particularly holds true where, as in these cases, the accusation is directed by the complainant against her own father. Considering the Filipino values, so deeply ingrained in our culture, of respect and reverence for our elders, it is unthinkable for a daughter to invent a sordid tale of incest if such were not true.[15]

GR Nos. 142602-05

2001-10-03

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

MENDOZA, J.

Nor is it probable that Maribel filed these cases against accused-appellant because the latter had scolded her for disobeying him. This is not enough to make a young woman fabricate a charge as serious as rape against her father. It would take a certain kind of psychological depravity for a woman to invent a shameful story of incest that would put the life of her own father at stake simply because he scolded her.[21]

GR No. 132364

2001-05-23

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALVERO Y TARADO

PER CURIAM

Appellant's sheer denial cannot overthrow the unequivocal and, positive testimony of his child-victim. Without being substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, his defense deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of Ameerah, whom we find to be a credible witness.[16] In any event, appellant failed to satisfactorily rebut or discredit the prosecution evidence.

GR No. 139413-15

2001-03-20

PEOPLE v. ENDRICO GALAS

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

However, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove Sharon's age at the time she was raped other than her statement in court while describing her personal circumstances, that she was seventeen (17) years old at the time she testified on June 3, 1999. Such casual testimony of the victim as to her age is not sufficient. To justify the imposition of death, proof of the victim's age is indubitable. There must be sufficient and clear evidence proving her age, even if not denied by the accused.[22] A duly certified certificate of his birth accurately showing the complainant's age or some other authentic documents such as a baptismal certificate or a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence[23]

GR No. 130522

2001-02-15

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO PAGDAYAWON

PER CURIAM

'As this Court had occasion to rule in People vs. Baylon (L-35785, 29 May 1974, 57 SCRA 114), where the victims are of tender years, "there is marked receptivity on its part to lend credence to their version of what transpired," a matter that is not to be wondered at, since the State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority are not yet able to fully protect themselves'."[9] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not[10]. We find no reason to deviate from the general rule that factual findings of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal, as they are not clearly arbitrary or unfounded[11].

GR No. 131823

2001-01-17

PEOPLE v. ISAGANI PARAISO Y HUTALLA

PER CURIAM

Axiomatic is the rule that factual findings of trial courts are accorded the highest respect and are generally not disturbed by the appellate court, unless they are found to be clearly arbitrary or unfounded, or some substantial fact or circumstance that could materially affect the disposition of the case was overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted. [15] This rule is founded on the fact that the trial judge has the unique opportunity to personally observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness stand, which are significant factors in evaluating their honesty, sincerity and credibility. Through its direct observations in the entire proceedings, the judge can be expected to reasonably determine whose testimony to accept and which witness to disbelieve. [16] On the other hand, the reviewing magistrate has none of the advantages peculiar to the trial judge's position, and could rely only on the cold records of the case and on the judge's discretion. [17] In the present case, we find no reason to deviate from these rules.

	GR No. 175275 2008-02-19	EMILIO CAMPOS v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Moreover, a rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since, customarily, Filipino children revere and respect their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families that it is unthinkable for a daughter to concoct brazenly a story of rape against her father, if such were not true.[13] Indeed, courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who fell victim to sexual assault, especially a minor, particularly in incestuous rape as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and bear the concomitant shame, humiliation, and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not for the purpose of condemning injustice and ensuring that the offender is punished.[14]
	GR No. 141782 2001-12-14	PEOPLE v. RENATO FLORES PANGANIBAN, J.
There is no standard form of behavior when a person is confronted by a shocking, harrowing and unexpected incident. The workings of the human mind, when placed under emotional stress, are unpredictable. Rape is a traumatic experience, and the shock concomitant with it may linger for a while. Oftentimes, the victim would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private, rather than reveal her shame to the world or risk the rapist's carrying out his threat to harm her.[36]
	GR Nos. 139959-60 2001-11-22	PEOPLE v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS Y ARSITE MENDOZA, J.
First, we have held that no standard form of behavior may be expected when a person is confronted by a shocking or a harrowing and unexpected incident, for the workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion.[20] Second, in rape cases, the force required need not be overpowering or irresistible when employed. What is necessary is that the force be sufficient to accomplish the purpose which the accused had in mind.[21] The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself because of fear.[22] Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective.[23] The victim categorically described the force and intimidation exerted when she was ravished. She tried to resist by kicking accused-appellant. But he was no match for her. She wanted to scream but her mouth was covered and he pinned her down on the bed.[24]
	GR Nos. 139959-60 2001-11-22	PEOPLE v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS Y ARSITE MENDOZA, J.
Nor was there any undue delay on the part of Salvacion in reporting the rape. On March 22, 1998, just 12 days after she was first raped and four days after she was raped for the second time, she reported the incident to her husband and later to the police. The alleged delay was naturally caused by accused-appellant's threat that he would kill her if she told her husband about the incident. The failure of a complainant to immediately report the rapes to her family or the police authorities due to threats does not detract from the victim's credibility.[29] Rape is a harrowing experience and the shock concomitant to it may linger for a while. Oftentimes, victims would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal their shame to the world or risk the rapist's making good the threat to do them harm.[30] The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe Salvacion's demeanor during the trial, found her testimony plausible and credible. It correctly held:That she did not report to her husband or to the police the sexual assaults immediately after March 10 and 18 has been thus explained satisfactorily by her. Besides, it is not uncommon for young women like Salvacion to conceal for sometime assaults on their virtue because of shame and also because she was warned by accused not to tell her husband. The silence of Salvacion and her failure to reveal the incidents to her husband and report to the police until several days later do not necessarily mean that she was not sexually molested and that the charges against accused are baseless, untrue and fabricated. Silence is not an odd behavior of victims of rape. (People v. Dones, G.R. No. 108743, March 13, 1996)
	GR No. 139904 2001-10-12	PEOPLE v. CONRADO MERCADO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"fn">[30] With more reason, her testimony would suffice where it is corroborated by other evidence in its material points. Although, admittedly, Larry Torralba did not witness the actual rape, his testimony constitutes circumstantial proof which, taken together with other evidence, more specifically, the discovery of the articles of clothing and rope inside accused-appellant's hut, tends to prove the commission of the crime. xxx. Conviction for rape may be based on circumstantial evidence when the victim cannot testify on the actual commission of the rape as she was rendered unconscious when the act was committed, provided that more than one circumstance is duly proved and that the totality or the unbroken chain of the circumstances proven lead to no other logical conclusion than the appellant's guilt of the crime charged. xxx.[31] In the face of the victim's clear and positive account of the commission of the crime, accused-appellant can only offer the defense of denial and alibi. Unfortunately, the place where accused-appellant allegedly was at the time of the rape was only three kilometers
	GR Nos. 142602-05 2001-10-03	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA MENDOZA, J.
We have long since held that the lone testimony of the offended party in a rape case, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[14] For, in truth, no woman, especially one of tender age, would contrive a charge of sexual abuse and undergo the degradation and humiliation of a public trial, where she would be forced to reveal the lurid details of how she was violated, if she had not actually been raped or been moved by a desire to obtain justice and vindicate her honor. This particularly holds true where, as in these cases, the accusation is directed by the complainant against her own father. Considering the Filipino values, so deeply ingrained in our culture, of respect and reverence for our elders, it is unthinkable for a daughter to invent a sordid tale of incest if such were not true.[15]
	GR Nos. 142602-05 2001-10-03	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA MENDOZA, J.
Nor is it probable that Maribel filed these cases against accused-appellant because the latter had scolded her for disobeying him. This is not enough to make a young woman fabricate a charge as serious as rape against her father. It would take a certain kind of psychological depravity for a woman to invent a shameful story of incest that would put the life of her own father at stake simply because he scolded her.[21]
	GR No. 132364 2001-05-23	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ALVERO Y TARADO PER CURIAM
Appellant's sheer denial cannot overthrow the unequivocal and, positive testimony of his child-victim. Without being substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, his defense deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of Ameerah, whom we find to be a credible witness.[16] In any event, appellant failed to satisfactorily rebut or discredit the prosecution evidence.
	GR No. 139413-15 2001-03-20	PEOPLE v. ENDRICO GALAS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
However, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove Sharon's age at the time she was raped other than her statement in court while describing her personal circumstances, that she was seventeen (17) years old at the time she testified on June 3, 1999. Such casual testimony of the victim as to her age is not sufficient. To justify the imposition of death, proof of the victim's age is indubitable. There must be sufficient and clear evidence proving her age, even if not denied by the accused.[22] A duly certified certificate of his birth accurately showing the complainant's age or some other authentic documents such as a baptismal certificate or a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence[23]
	GR No. 130522 2001-02-15	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO PAGDAYAWON PER CURIAM
'As this Court had occasion to rule in People vs. Baylon (L-35785, 29 May 1974, 57 SCRA 114), where the victims are of tender years, "there is marked receptivity on its part to lend credence to their version of what transpired," a matter that is not to be wondered at, since the State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority are not yet able to fully protect themselves'."[9] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not[10]. We find no reason to deviate from the general rule that factual findings of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal, as they are not clearly arbitrary or unfounded[11].
	GR No. 131823 2001-01-17	PEOPLE v. ISAGANI PARAISO Y HUTALLA PER CURIAM
Axiomatic is the rule that factual findings of trial courts are accorded the highest respect and are generally not disturbed by the appellate court, unless they are found to be clearly arbitrary or unfounded, or some substantial fact or circumstance that could materially affect the disposition of the case was overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted. [15] This rule is founded on the fact that the trial judge has the unique opportunity to personally observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness stand, which are significant factors in evaluating their honesty, sincerity and credibility. Through its direct observations in the entire proceedings, the judge can be expected to reasonably determine whose testimony to accept and which witness to disbelieve. [16] On the other hand, the reviewing magistrate has none of the advantages peculiar to the trial judge's position, and could rely only on the cold records of the case and on the judge's discretion. [17] In the present case, we find no reason to deviate from these rules.

PEOPLE v. FELIPE PECAYO SR.