Lawyerly

GR No. 177357

2012-10-17

MENDOZA, J.

The same can be said of the failure of AAA to shout for help, kick the accused or bite their penises during the assault. It has been said that though a man lays no hand on a woman, yet if by an array of physical forces, he so overpowers her mind that she does not resist, or she ceases resistance through fear of greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act is recognized in jurisprudence as rape.[38] Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist's embrace because of fear for life and personal safety.[39] Threats, intimidation, violence, fear, and terror all combined to suppress the will to resist, kick, shout, or struggle against the rapist. AAA added that she could not shout because Delos Reyes was squeezing her neck.

GR No. 188601

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA

VELASCO JR., J.

Additionally, accused-appellant cannot plausibly bank on the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies, even if they do exist because such minor and insignificant inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness for they show that his testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[43] Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[44]

GR No. 185285

2009-10-05

PEOPLE v. PAUL ALIPIO

VELASCO JR., J.

To be sure, AAA's testimony is not without discrepancies and inconsistencies, given of course her mental state. It cannot be over-emphasized, however, that the inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant strike this Court as trivial. Rape is a harrowing experience, the exact details of which are usually not remembered. Inconsistencies, even if they do exist, tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness, for they show that the testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[11] Trivial inconsistencies, like the matter of whether or not accused-appellant called out on AAA before he forcibly grabbed her hands, do not, to borrow from People v. Cristobal, rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[12]

GR No. 185724

2009-06-05

PEOPLE v. JESSIE MALATE Y CAÑETE

VELASCO JR., J.

Furthermore, accused-appellant cannot plausibly bank on the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant to discredit her account of the incident. Even if they do exist, minor and insignificant inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness for they show that his testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[16] Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[17] As aptly held in the American case of State v. Erikson, the rule that a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases must be corroborated "does not apply where the inconsistency or contradiction bears upon proof not essential to the case."[18] Well to point, even the most truthful witnesses can sometimes make mistakes, but such minor lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility.[19]

GR NO. 168444

2006-12-13

PEOPLE v. ROMEO CANARE Y MENDOZA

GARCIA, J.

That XXX did not immediately realize appellant's malevolent intentions after seeing him naked and when he dragged her holding her by the wrist did not, in any way, erode XXX's credibility. It is a recognized principle that different people react differently to emotional stress: there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident,[14] such as rape in this case.

GR NO. 168649

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Private complainant is being faulted for not taking the necessary measures to prevent a recurrence of her horrible experience with accused-appellant last 24 December 1999. Her failure to perform what accused-appellant claims she ought to have done cannot be taken against her. A fourteen-year old girl cannot be reasonably expected to exercise or put into place any measure that would avert the repetition of the ordeal with her father. How the victim comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape.[22] Not all victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[23] The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[24] This Court, in People v. Luzorata,[25] held:This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt x x x.

GR NO. 166546

2006-09-26

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The fact that private complainant acted as if nothing horrible happened to her does not warrant appellant's exoneration. How the victim comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape.[24] Not all victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[25] The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[26] This Court, in People v. Luzorata,[27] held:This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt x x x.

GR No. 149531

2003-07-22

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO RAMIREZ

VITUG, J.

Appellant would fault Felisa for her delay in the filing of the complaint. It had long been settled that the failure to promptly file a complaint to the proper authorities would not necessarily destroy the truth per se of the complaint[6] nor would it impair the credibility of the complainant, particularly if such delay were satisfactorily explained.[7] In this case, Felisa elucidated that Col. Villaroman, the superior officer of both her husband and appellant, advised the couple against the filing of the complaint at the time for it could imperil a police operations still then being undertaken against a drug syndicate.[8]

GR No. 128720

2002-01-23

S & SGT. ELMER T. VERGARA v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

In the light of private complainant's positive identification of petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime, the latter's defense of bare denial and alibi must necessarily fail, as her positive testimony overrides his negative testimony.[18] Alibi is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused.[19] Further, an alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the petitioner by a credible witness who has no motive to testify falsely.[20]

GR Nos. 126538-39

2001-11-20

PEOPLE v. RODELIO MARCELO

QUISUMBING, J.

Cecilia's fear is a viable reason for her long silence. This should not be taken against her. It is fear, springing from the initial rape, from which the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.[22] And even if delay could not be attributed to death threats and intimidation, the failure of complainant in promptly reporting the offense to the proper authorities would not destroy the truth per se of the complaint.[23]

GR No. 124299

2000-04-12

PEOPLE v. CESAR LACANIETA

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

We are not persuaded. A telling detail in this case is the fact that the mother of the victim witnessed first hand the abduction of her daughter at gunpoint. Consorcia has no reason to wrongfully implicate BALLENAS. As the mother of the deceased victim, Consorcia would want nothing short of justice for her dead daughter. BALLENAS does not deny the fact that he went to see WILMA to fetch her that evening of March 20, 1987. In professing his innocence, BALLENAS merely denies the allegations of Consorcia that he took away WILMA at gunpoint and offers the defense that he merely talked to WILMA to convince her to meet with LACANIETA. Well-settled is the rule that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credence.[21] An affirmative testimony is far stronger than negative testimony, especially so when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[22] The fact that BALLENAS exposed himself to Consorcia all the more indicates his brazenness in abducting WILMA. The return of BALLENAS to Catmon after the death of WILMA cannot be also taken as a badge of his innocence. It is the credible and unwavering testimony of Consorcia that stands as solid proof of the guilt of BALLENAS.

GR No. 123113

2000-03-31

PEOPLE v. JERRY ABALDE

PARDO, J.

At the outset, accused Jerry put in issue the credibility of the victim Ervie Tonelete, upon whose testimony he was convicted. However, "it is well settled that the assessment by a trial court of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to the highest respect, because it heard the witness and observed their behavior and manner of testifying. Absent any showing that it overlooked some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, its factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal."[35] Considering that "the crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, hence it is usually the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus."[36]

GR No. 129074

2000-02-28

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR LOMERIO

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Furthermore, the issue of credibility is best addressed to the trial court judge who observed first hand the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses. Appellate courts will not disturb the findings on the credibility, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimony of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the trial court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily certain facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[10]

	GR No. 177357 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. VAL DELOS REYES MENDOZA, J.
The same can be said of the failure of AAA to shout for help, kick the accused or bite their penises during the assault. It has been said that though a man lays no hand on a woman, yet if by an array of physical forces, he so overpowers her mind that she does not resist, or she ceases resistance through fear of greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act is recognized in jurisprudence as rape.[38] Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist's embrace because of fear for life and personal safety.[39] Threats, intimidation, violence, fear, and terror all combined to suppress the will to resist, kick, shout, or struggle against the rapist. AAA added that she could not shout because Delos Reyes was squeezing her neck.
	GR No. 188601 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
Additionally, accused-appellant cannot plausibly bank on the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies, even if they do exist because such minor and insignificant inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness for they show that his testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[43] Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[44]
	GR No. 185285 2009-10-05	PEOPLE v. PAUL ALIPIO VELASCO JR., J.
To be sure, AAA's testimony is not without discrepancies and inconsistencies, given of course her mental state. It cannot be over-emphasized, however, that the inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant strike this Court as trivial. Rape is a harrowing experience, the exact details of which are usually not remembered. Inconsistencies, even if they do exist, tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness, for they show that the testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[11] Trivial inconsistencies, like the matter of whether or not accused-appellant called out on AAA before he forcibly grabbed her hands, do not, to borrow from People v. Cristobal, rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[12]
	GR No. 185724 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JESSIE MALATE Y CAÑETE VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, accused-appellant cannot plausibly bank on the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant to discredit her account of the incident. Even if they do exist, minor and insignificant inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness for they show that his testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[16] Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[17] As aptly held in the American case of State v. Erikson, the rule that a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases must be corroborated "does not apply where the inconsistency or contradiction bears upon proof not essential to the case."[18] Well to point, even the most truthful witnesses can sometimes make mistakes, but such minor lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility.[19]
	GR NO. 168444 2006-12-13	PEOPLE v. ROMEO CANARE Y MENDOZA GARCIA, J.
That XXX did not immediately realize appellant's malevolent intentions after seeing him naked and when he dragged her holding her by the wrist did not, in any way, erode XXX's credibility. It is a recognized principle that different people react differently to emotional stress: there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident,[14] such as rape in this case.
	GR NO. 168649 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Private complainant is being faulted for not taking the necessary measures to prevent a recurrence of her horrible experience with accused-appellant last 24 December 1999. Her failure to perform what accused-appellant claims she ought to have done cannot be taken against her. A fourteen-year old girl cannot be reasonably expected to exercise or put into place any measure that would avert the repetition of the ordeal with her father. How the victim comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape.[22] Not all victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[23] The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[24] This Court, in People v. Luzorata,[25] held:This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt x x x.
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The fact that private complainant acted as if nothing horrible happened to her does not warrant appellant's exoneration. How the victim comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape.[24] Not all victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[25] The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[26] This Court, in People v. Luzorata,[27] held:This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt x x x.
	GR No. 149531 2003-07-22	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO RAMIREZ VITUG, J.
Appellant would fault Felisa for her delay in the filing of the complaint. It had long been settled that the failure to promptly file a complaint to the proper authorities would not necessarily destroy the truth per se of the complaint[6] nor would it impair the credibility of the complainant, particularly if such delay were satisfactorily explained.[7] In this case, Felisa elucidated that Col. Villaroman, the superior officer of both her husband and appellant, advised the couple against the filing of the complaint at the time for it could imperil a police operations still then being undertaken against a drug syndicate.[8]
	GR No. 128720 2002-01-23	S & SGT. ELMER T. VERGARA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
In the light of private complainant's positive identification of petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime, the latter's defense of bare denial and alibi must necessarily fail, as her positive testimony overrides his negative testimony.[18] Alibi is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused.[19] Further, an alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the petitioner by a credible witness who has no motive to testify falsely.[20]
	GR Nos. 126538-39 2001-11-20	PEOPLE v. RODELIO MARCELO QUISUMBING, J.
Cecilia's fear is a viable reason for her long silence. This should not be taken against her. It is fear, springing from the initial rape, from which the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.[22] And even if delay could not be attributed to death threats and intimidation, the failure of complainant in promptly reporting the offense to the proper authorities would not destroy the truth per se of the complaint.[23]
	GR No. 124299 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. CESAR LACANIETA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
We are not persuaded. A telling detail in this case is the fact that the mother of the victim witnessed first hand the abduction of her daughter at gunpoint. Consorcia has no reason to wrongfully implicate BALLENAS. As the mother of the deceased victim, Consorcia would want nothing short of justice for her dead daughter. BALLENAS does not deny the fact that he went to see WILMA to fetch her that evening of March 20, 1987. In professing his innocence, BALLENAS merely denies the allegations of Consorcia that he took away WILMA at gunpoint and offers the defense that he merely talked to WILMA to convince her to meet with LACANIETA. Well-settled is the rule that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credence.[21] An affirmative testimony is far stronger than negative testimony, especially so when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[22] The fact that BALLENAS exposed himself to Consorcia all the more indicates his brazenness in abducting WILMA. The return of BALLENAS to Catmon after the death of WILMA cannot be also taken as a badge of his innocence. It is the credible and unwavering testimony of Consorcia that stands as solid proof of the guilt of BALLENAS.
	GR No. 123113 2000-03-31	PEOPLE v. JERRY ABALDE PARDO, J.
At the outset, accused Jerry put in issue the credibility of the victim Ervie Tonelete, upon whose testimony he was convicted. However, "it is well settled that the assessment by a trial court of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to the highest respect, because it heard the witness and observed their behavior and manner of testifying. Absent any showing that it overlooked some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, its factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal."[35] Considering that "the crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, hence it is usually the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus."[36]
	GR No. 129074 2000-02-28	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR LOMERIO GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Furthermore, the issue of credibility is best addressed to the trial court judge who observed first hand the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses. Appellate courts will not disturb the findings on the credibility, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimony of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the trial court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily certain facts and circumstances of significance in the case.[10]

PEOPLE v. ROMY SAGUN