Lawyerly

GR No. 189324

2013-03-20

PEREZ, J.

Rape case principles have not changed: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[8] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[9]

GR No. 188669

2010-02-16

PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO MENDOZA Y BERIZO

NACHURA, J.

In the review of rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[5] Ultimately, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[6]

GR No. 181083

2010-01-21

PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SALLE SOBUSA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Jurisprudence is likewise settled that when the rape victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. Laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[21] In this case, the medical finding of AAA's old healed hymenal lacerations is consistent with her testimony that her private parts bled after she was sexually ravished.

GR No. 185004

2009-08-25

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO FERASOL

NACHURA, J.

In the review of rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[7] Ultimately, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[8]

GR No. 174484

2009-02-23

PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Appellant's claim deserves scant consideration. The Court finds it incredible for private complainants and their mother to trump up charges of rape and acts of lasciviousness against appellant because they wanted to exact revenge on him for the simple reason that he caused them problems. No woman would cry rape, allow an examination of her private parts, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of public trial and taint her good name if her claim were not true.[35] Both AAA and BBB testified that they were aware that if their father would be found guilty as charged, he would suffer the penalty of death.[36] It takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which could cause the loss of life of her own father and drag the rest of the family, including herself, to a lifetime of shame.[37]

GR No. 169061

2007-06-08

PEOPLE v. ROQUE ABELLANO

NACHURA, J.

In the review of rape cases, we continue to be guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[13] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[14]

GR No. 169061

2007-06-08

PEOPLE v. ROQUE ABELLANO

NACHURA, J.

Third. As for the alleged ill motive behind the institution of the case, the appellate court is correct in finding that the accused did not present concrete proof to buttress the same.[28] Corollarily, it is unbelievable that AAA will allow herself to be influenced by her uncle to concoct a convoluted story of rape by her own father simply because he was prevented by the accused from taking custody of her and her sisters after their mother's death. No woman would want to go through the humiliation of trial unless she has been so brutalized that she desires justice for her suffering.[29] It takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which could cost the life of her own father and drag the rest of the family, including herself, to a lifetime of shame.[30] AAA's asseveration that she wanted to protect her siblings from their father's sexual clutches far outweighs accused's lame attempt to cast a shadow on her credibility and save himself. Besides, the records reveal that AAA herself, accompanied by her aunt, went to the Manito Police Station to lodge a complaint against the accused.

GR NO. 152969

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. BOBBY ORENSE

VITUG, J.

As so often said, this Court, is guided in its review of trial court decisions in rape cases by certain guidelines, i.e., (1) that an accusation for rape can be made with facility; (2) that the crime is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (3) that, in view of the nature of the offense of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (4) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[13] More frequently than not, however, the thrust of the issues focuses on the credibility of the victim. In this respect, great reliance is made on the evaluation made by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, during the direct and cross-examination by counsel.[14]

GR No. 144595

2003-08-06

PEOPLE v. DANTE ILAGAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Q: What was that, that you felt came out from the private organ if your father? A: As if phlegm (sipon), sir.[18] The aforequoted testimony of the victim is marked by spontaneity, honesty, and sincerity. When the testimony of the victim is simple and straightforward, the same must be given full faith and credit.[19] A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be easily dismissed as mere concoction. It is highly inconceivable for a daughter to publicly accuse her father of rape if it were not true. Indeed, it is highly against human nature to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, especially when her charge could mean the death of her own father.[20]

GR Nos. 135522-23

2001-10-02

PEOPLE v. AMORSOLO TORRES Y GANIBO

PER CURIAM

The information alleged that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with his daughter, then fourteen years old. The prosecution presented the birth certificate of complainant which shows that she was born on October 14, 1983. Complainant testified that she was 14 years old when she was raped by accused-appellant and this was confirmed by her mother, Gloria Torres. Moreover, accused-appellant admitted that complainant is his daughter, which was corroborated by the complainant. The concurrence of minority of the complainant and her relationship to the offender, having been alleged in the information and duly proved with certainty and clearness as the crime itself during trial, constrains the Court to affirm the conviction of accused-appellant of qualified rape, justifying the imposition of the death penalty on him.[20]

GR No. 142564

2001-09-26

PEOPLE v. HILGEM NERIO Y GIGANTO

PER CURIAM

The award of civil indemnity of accused-appellant in the amount of P50,000.00 should be increased to P75,000.00. This is in line with current case law,[58] that if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty by applicable amendatory laws, the accused should be ordered to pay the complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is in accordance with recent rulings.[59] As to the award of exemplary damages, we held in People vs. Catubig[60] that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages. Hence, the award of exemplary damages by the trial court is proper, but the same should be reduced to P25,000.00 in line with the ruling in Catubig.

GR Nos. 138308-10

2001-09-26

PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS

PER CURIAM

However, the award of damages to complainant should be revised. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 to complainant as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00 in accordance with current case law.[28] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is correct it being assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries as a result of the rape.[29] On the other hand, the award of exemplary damages, which is granted in the case of incestuous rape because of the presence of aggravating circumstances, should be reduced to P25,000.00 in line with current rulings.[30] Moreover, these items of damages should be awarded in favor of the complainant for each count of rape.

GR No. 133475

2001-03-26

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MONTEJO

MENDOZA, J.

We would like to make it of record also that the witness said "dugo" only which means "blood," your Honor.[47] Juvelyn's claim that she had been raped by accused-appellant is consistent with the medical findings that her hymen is not intact. When a victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, as when the hymen is no longer intact, there is sufficient foundation to find the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.[48] The absence of physical injuries on Juvelyn and her failure to shout for help also do not preclude rape.[49] Moreover, for rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is enough that the intimidation produces such fear in the victim that if she does not yield to the demands of the accused, something grave would happen to her. Intimidation would also explain why there were no traces of struggle which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker.[50] In fact, lack or even absence of resistance is not necessary because the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[51] As against the foregoing, the denial interposed by accused-appellant cannot prevail.

GR Nos. 138146-91

2001-02-28

PEOPLE v. SANDY HINTO Y BUENO

PER CURIAM

With respect to the civil liability of the accused-appellant, as recommended by the Office of the Solicitor General, we hold that the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00, consistent with the decisions of this Court,[45] that if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty by applicable amendatory laws, the complainant should be awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. In addition, accused-appellant should be ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages. This award requires neither allegation nor proof because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[46]

GR No. 124297

2001-02-21

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAYAO

MENDOZA, J.

To be sure, findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to respect as it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor on the witness stand.[19] The trial court's finding that Jenny's testimony is "clear and spontaneous" is borne out by the following excerpt from her testimony: Q How were you able to say that your father raped you? A On June 15, 1987, after I arrived home, he called for me, sir.

GR No. 133925

2000-11-29

PEOPLE v. AGUSTIN GOPIO

MENDOZA, J.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. In the prosecution for rape cases, this Court has been guided by the following principles in its review of trial court decisions: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[16]

	GR No. 189324 2013-03-20	PEOPLE v. GILBERT PENILLA Y FRANCIA PEREZ, J.
Rape case principles have not changed: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[8] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[9]
	GR No. 188669 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO MENDOZA Y BERIZO NACHURA, J.
In the review of rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[5] Ultimately, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[6]
	GR No. 181083 2010-01-21	PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SALLE SOBUSA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence is likewise settled that when the rape victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. Laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[21] In this case, the medical finding of AAA's old healed hymenal lacerations is consistent with her testimony that her private parts bled after she was sexually ravished.
	GR No. 185004 2009-08-25	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO FERASOL NACHURA, J.
In the review of rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[7] Ultimately, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[8]
	GR No. 174484 2009-02-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Appellant's claim deserves scant consideration. The Court finds it incredible for private complainants and their mother to trump up charges of rape and acts of lasciviousness against appellant because they wanted to exact revenge on him for the simple reason that he caused them problems. No woman would cry rape, allow an examination of her private parts, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of public trial and taint her good name if her claim were not true.[35] Both AAA and BBB testified that they were aware that if their father would be found guilty as charged, he would suffer the penalty of death.[36] It takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which could cause the loss of life of her own father and drag the rest of the family, including herself, to a lifetime of shame.[37]
	GR No. 169061 2007-06-08	PEOPLE v. ROQUE ABELLANO NACHURA, J.
In the review of rape cases, we continue to be guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[13] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[14]
	GR No. 169061 2007-06-08	PEOPLE v. ROQUE ABELLANO NACHURA, J.
Third. As for the alleged ill motive behind the institution of the case, the appellate court is correct in finding that the accused did not present concrete proof to buttress the same.[28] Corollarily, it is unbelievable that AAA will allow herself to be influenced by her uncle to concoct a convoluted story of rape by her own father simply because he was prevented by the accused from taking custody of her and her sisters after their mother's death. No woman would want to go through the humiliation of trial unless she has been so brutalized that she desires justice for her suffering.[29] It takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which could cost the life of her own father and drag the rest of the family, including herself, to a lifetime of shame.[30] AAA's asseveration that she wanted to protect her siblings from their father's sexual clutches far outweighs accused's lame attempt to cast a shadow on her credibility and save himself. Besides, the records reveal that AAA herself, accompanied by her aunt, went to the Manito Police Station to lodge a complaint against the accused.
	GR NO. 152969 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. BOBBY ORENSE VITUG, J.
As so often said, this Court, is guided in its review of trial court decisions in rape cases by certain guidelines, i.e., (1) that an accusation for rape can be made with facility; (2) that the crime is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (3) that, in view of the nature of the offense of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (4) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[13] More frequently than not, however, the thrust of the issues focuses on the credibility of the victim. In this respect, great reliance is made on the evaluation made by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, during the direct and cross-examination by counsel.[14]
	GR No. 144595 2003-08-06	PEOPLE v. DANTE ILAGAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Q: What was that, that you felt came out from the private organ if your father? A: As if phlegm (sipon), sir.[18] The aforequoted testimony of the victim is marked by spontaneity, honesty, and sincerity. When the testimony of the victim is simple and straightforward, the same must be given full faith and credit.[19] A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be easily dismissed as mere concoction. It is highly inconceivable for a daughter to publicly accuse her father of rape if it were not true. Indeed, it is highly against human nature to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, especially when her charge could mean the death of her own father.[20]
	GR Nos. 135522-23 2001-10-02	PEOPLE v. AMORSOLO TORRES Y GANIBO PER CURIAM
The information alleged that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with his daughter, then fourteen years old. The prosecution presented the birth certificate of complainant which shows that she was born on October 14, 1983. Complainant testified that she was 14 years old when she was raped by accused-appellant and this was confirmed by her mother, Gloria Torres. Moreover, accused-appellant admitted that complainant is his daughter, which was corroborated by the complainant. The concurrence of minority of the complainant and her relationship to the offender, having been alleged in the information and duly proved with certainty and clearness as the crime itself during trial, constrains the Court to affirm the conviction of accused-appellant of qualified rape, justifying the imposition of the death penalty on him.[20]
	GR No. 142564 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. HILGEM NERIO Y GIGANTO PER CURIAM
The award of civil indemnity of accused-appellant in the amount of P50,000.00 should be increased to P75,000.00. This is in line with current case law,[58] that if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty by applicable amendatory laws, the accused should be ordered to pay the complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is in accordance with recent rulings.[59] As to the award of exemplary damages, we held in People vs. Catubig[60] that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages. Hence, the award of exemplary damages by the trial court is proper, but the same should be reduced to P25,000.00 in line with the ruling in Catubig.
	GR Nos. 138308-10 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. PABLO SANTOS PER CURIAM
However, the award of damages to complainant should be revised. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 to complainant as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00 in accordance with current case law.[28] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is correct it being assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries as a result of the rape.[29] On the other hand, the award of exemplary damages, which is granted in the case of incestuous rape because of the presence of aggravating circumstances, should be reduced to P25,000.00 in line with current rulings.[30] Moreover, these items of damages should be awarded in favor of the complainant for each count of rape.
	GR No. 133475 2001-03-26	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MONTEJO MENDOZA, J.
We would like to make it of record also that the witness said "dugo" only which means "blood," your Honor.[47] Juvelyn's claim that she had been raped by accused-appellant is consistent with the medical findings that her hymen is not intact. When a victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, as when the hymen is no longer intact, there is sufficient foundation to find the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.[48] The absence of physical injuries on Juvelyn and her failure to shout for help also do not preclude rape.[49] Moreover, for rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is enough that the intimidation produces such fear in the victim that if she does not yield to the demands of the accused, something grave would happen to her. Intimidation would also explain why there were no traces of struggle which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker.[50] In fact, lack or even absence of resistance is not necessary because the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[51] As against the foregoing, the denial interposed by accused-appellant cannot prevail.
	GR Nos. 138146-91 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. SANDY HINTO Y BUENO PER CURIAM
With respect to the civil liability of the accused-appellant, as recommended by the Office of the Solicitor General, we hold that the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00, consistent with the decisions of this Court,[45] that if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty by applicable amendatory laws, the complainant should be awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. In addition, accused-appellant should be ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages. This award requires neither allegation nor proof because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[46]
	GR No. 124297 2001-02-21	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAYAO MENDOZA, J.
To be sure, findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to respect as it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor on the witness stand.[19] The trial court's finding that Jenny's testimony is "clear and spontaneous" is borne out by the following excerpt from her testimony: Q How were you able to say that your father raped you? A On June 15, 1987, after I arrived home, he called for me, sir.
	GR No. 133925 2000-11-29	PEOPLE v. AGUSTIN GOPIO MENDOZA, J.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. In the prosecution for rape cases, this Court has been guided by the following principles in its review of trial court decisions: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[16]

PEOPLE v. EMELITO BRONDIAL Y CULAWAY