Lawyerly

GR No. 193664

2011-03-23

VELASCO JR., J.

In the instant case, the records clearly show AAA's candor and spontaneity in testifying on the events that transpired. As We held in People v. Caratay, when a witness' testimony is straightforward, candid, and "unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit."[40] More importantly, no woman, especially one who is young and immature, "would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter allow herself to be perverted in a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished."[41]

GR NO. 173484

2007-03-20

PEOPLE v. SIMEON SUYAT Y JOSE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is clear from the foregoing that despite the determined cross-examination by the opposing counsel, AAA remained steadfast in her assertion that accused-appellant was able to have sexual intercourse with her against her will. Accused-appellant's abridged reading of AAA's testimony fails to overcome her positive and forthright candid recollection of the unfortunate incident that night. The rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its vital points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[40]

GR NO. 171314

2007-03-06

PEOPLE v. PATERNO OLIQUINO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Finally, the parties agree that there was no animosity among them prior to this dispute. This, to our minds, undermines the appellant's case for in areas such as where AAA was raised, young ladies by custom and tradition act with circumspection and prudence, and that great caution is observed so that their reputation remains untainted.[57] We see no reason, and appellant failed to produce any, to inquire into the motive behind AAA's institution of this action except to seek justice for the irreparable damage that appellant had inflicted upon her. Indeed, no woman, much less a young girl such as AAA, would make public a painful and humiliating secret unless she was viciously wronged.

GR No. 135559

2003-09-18

PEOPLE v. MORENO OCUMEN Y MENDOZA

PER CURIAM

A He was making sexual intercourse, sir."[19] The foregoing testimonies are manifestly credible. They are marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. Well-settled is the rule that when a witness' testimony is straightforward, candid and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in material points, as in this case, the same must be given full faith and credit.[20] As to Russel's declarations, it is inconceivable that she would publicly disclose the harrowing and humiliating sexual indignity she experienced in the hands of appellant if it really did not happen.[21]

GR No. 145726

2003-03-26

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND ANTONIO

PER CURIAM

Q. You did not make any unnecessary movements so that your younger brothers and sister will be awakened, Madam Witness? A. I was not able to move hard, sir."[15] The above testimony is manifestly credible. It is marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. Settled is the rule that when a victim's testimony is straightforward, candid and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, as in this case, the same must be given full faith and credit.[16] When an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape had been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[17]

GR No. 133695

2001-02-28

PEOPLE v. DANIEL MAURICIO Y PEREZ

BELLOSILLO, J.

We sustain the conviction of Daniel Mauricio for rape. His barefaced, uncorroborated denials cannot prevail over the positive testimony of his victim. When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[6] Thus the trial court observed of the testimony of Jonalyn -

GR No. 130406

2001-01-22

PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Q. With what instrument [did] accused use in stabbing your left hand? A. Kitchen knife.[18] Under rigorous cross-examination, private complainant remained steadfast and never wavered in her assertion that accused-appellant forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.[19] On review, the Court finds that her testimony bears the hallmarks of truth. It is consistent in material points. The rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[20]

GR No. 132047

2000-12-14

PEOPLE v. FELIPE PECAYO SR.

PANGANIBAN, J.

Indeed, no woman, especially one of tender age, would contrive a tale of defilement and undergo the humiliating ordeal and indignity of testifying on the sordid details of the crime, if she has not in fact been raped or been motivated by a desire to obtain justice and vindicate her honor.[17] When straightforward and unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, her testimony deserves full faith and credit and can sustain a conviction.[18] Credibility is surely enhanced when the accusing words are directed against a close relative, especially the father as in the present case.[19]

GR No. 125692

2000-10-24

PEOPLE v. GADFRE TIANSON

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

circumstances, physical resistance need not be established, especially since intimidation was exercised upon the victims and they submitted themselves against their will to accused-appellant's lust because of fear for life and personal safety.[11] Young though they are, the doctrine still holds that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect, all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility.[12] Courts give

GR No. 120656

2000-03-03

PEOPLE v. ARNEL FERDINAND OMAR Y ABAD

PARDO, J.

With respect to his civil liability, the trial court awarded P30,000.00 as civil indemnity. We modify this award since under present jurisprudence, an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape.[27] In addition, we grant moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 even without need of further proof, considering that the victim Marilou V. Moraleda, in fact, suffered mental and psychological trauma.[28]

GR No. 121980

2000-02-23

PEOPLE v. GONZALO PENASO

QUISUMBING, J.

In rape cases the issue, more often than not, is the credibility of the victim. Rape is generally unwitnessed and very often the victim is left to testify for herself. Her testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution.[10] When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, then it deserves full faith and credit and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.[11]

GR No. 125341

2000-02-09

PEOPLE v. JOEY BARCELONA Y SADILLE

MENDOZA, J.

But in the case at bar, no such circumstances exist so as to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of this Court that accused-appellant actually raped Dolly Maglinte. Complainant never wavered in her assertion that accused-appellant was able to have sexual intercourse with her only at knife point. She never admitted loving accused-appellant nor did she give any indication that she was attracted to him. On the contrary, she categorically denied having special feelings toward accused-appellant.[28] Even under cross-examination, complainant's testimony did not falter on that material fact. "The rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit."[29]

	GR No. 193664 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO VELASCO JR., J.
In the instant case, the records clearly show AAA's candor and spontaneity in testifying on the events that transpired. As We held in People v. Caratay, when a witness' testimony is straightforward, candid, and "unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit."[40] More importantly, no woman, especially one who is young and immature, "would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter allow herself to be perverted in a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished."[41]
	GR NO. 173484 2007-03-20	PEOPLE v. SIMEON SUYAT Y JOSE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is clear from the foregoing that despite the determined cross-examination by the opposing counsel, AAA remained steadfast in her assertion that accused-appellant was able to have sexual intercourse with her against her will. Accused-appellant's abridged reading of AAA's testimony fails to overcome her positive and forthright candid recollection of the unfortunate incident that night. The rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its vital points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[40]
	GR NO. 171314 2007-03-06	PEOPLE v. PATERNO OLIQUINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, the parties agree that there was no animosity among them prior to this dispute. This, to our minds, undermines the appellant's case for in areas such as where AAA was raised, young ladies by custom and tradition act with circumspection and prudence, and that great caution is observed so that their reputation remains untainted.[57] We see no reason, and appellant failed to produce any, to inquire into the motive behind AAA's institution of this action except to seek justice for the irreparable damage that appellant had inflicted upon her. Indeed, no woman, much less a young girl such as AAA, would make public a painful and humiliating secret unless she was viciously wronged.
	GR No. 135559 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. MORENO OCUMEN Y MENDOZA PER CURIAM
A He was making sexual intercourse, sir."[19] The foregoing testimonies are manifestly credible. They are marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. Well-settled is the rule that when a witness' testimony is straightforward, candid and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in material points, as in this case, the same must be given full faith and credit.[20] As to Russel's declarations, it is inconceivable that she would publicly disclose the harrowing and humiliating sexual indignity she experienced in the hands of appellant if it really did not happen.[21]
	GR No. 145726 2003-03-26	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND ANTONIO PER CURIAM
Q. You did not make any unnecessary movements so that your younger brothers and sister will be awakened, Madam Witness? A. I was not able to move hard, sir."[15] The above testimony is manifestly credible. It is marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. Settled is the rule that when a victim's testimony is straightforward, candid and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, as in this case, the same must be given full faith and credit.[16] When an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape had been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[17]
	GR No. 133695 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. DANIEL MAURICIO Y PEREZ BELLOSILLO, J.
We sustain the conviction of Daniel Mauricio for rape. His barefaced, uncorroborated denials cannot prevail over the positive testimony of his victim. When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[6] Thus the trial court observed of the testimony of Jonalyn -
	GR No. 130406 2001-01-22	PEOPLE v. RUEL BAWAY Y ALIGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Q. With what instrument [did] accused use in stabbing your left hand? A. Kitchen knife.[18] Under rigorous cross-examination, private complainant remained steadfast and never wavered in her assertion that accused-appellant forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.[19] On review, the Court finds that her testimony bears the hallmarks of truth. It is consistent in material points. The rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[20]
	GR No. 132047 2000-12-14	PEOPLE v. FELIPE PECAYO SR. PANGANIBAN, J.
Indeed, no woman, especially one of tender age, would contrive a tale of defilement and undergo the humiliating ordeal and indignity of testifying on the sordid details of the crime, if she has not in fact been raped or been motivated by a desire to obtain justice and vindicate her honor.[17] When straightforward and unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, her testimony deserves full faith and credit and can sustain a conviction.[18] Credibility is surely enhanced when the accusing words are directed against a close relative, especially the father as in the present case.[19]
	GR No. 125692 2000-10-24	PEOPLE v. GADFRE TIANSON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
circumstances, physical resistance need not be established, especially since intimidation was exercised upon the victims and they submitted themselves against their will to accused-appellant's lust because of fear for life and personal safety.[11] Young though they are, the doctrine still holds that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect, all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility.[12] Courts give
	GR No. 120656 2000-03-03	PEOPLE v. ARNEL FERDINAND OMAR Y ABAD PARDO, J.
With respect to his civil liability, the trial court awarded P30,000.00 as civil indemnity. We modify this award since under present jurisprudence, an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape.[27] In addition, we grant moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 even without need of further proof, considering that the victim Marilou V. Moraleda, in fact, suffered mental and psychological trauma.[28]
	GR No. 121980 2000-02-23	PEOPLE v. GONZALO PENASO QUISUMBING, J.
In rape cases the issue, more often than not, is the credibility of the victim. Rape is generally unwitnessed and very often the victim is left to testify for herself. Her testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution.[10] When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, then it deserves full faith and credit and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.[11]
	GR No. 125341 2000-02-09	PEOPLE v. JOEY BARCELONA Y SADILLE MENDOZA, J.
But in the case at bar, no such circumstances exist so as to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of this Court that accused-appellant actually raped Dolly Maglinte. Complainant never wavered in her assertion that accused-appellant was able to have sexual intercourse with her only at knife point. She never admitted loving accused-appellant nor did she give any indication that she was attracted to him. On the contrary, she categorically denied having special feelings toward accused-appellant.[28] Even under cross-examination, complainant's testimony did not falter on that material fact. "The rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit."[29]

PEOPLE v. JOAQUIN CARATAY