Lawyerly

GR No. 202838

2014-09-17

PEREZ, J.

As repeatedly held by this Court, "Lust is no respecter of time and place." [37] Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.[38] In the case of People v. Alarcon,[39] the accused argued that rape could not have committed when the victim's siblings were by her side was dismissed by the court. Isolation is not a determinative factor to rule on whether a rape was committed or not and there is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[40] It can be committed, discreetly or indiscreetly, even in a room full of family members sleeping side by side. It has been ruled that rape is not rendered impossible simply because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its commission.[41]

GR No. 199268

2014-02-12

PEOPLE v. AURELIO JASTIVA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Case law, however, shows numerous instances of rape committed under indirect and audacious circumstances.[63] The lust of a lecherous man respects neither time nor place. Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.[64]

GR No. 164258

2012-08-22

ESTRELLA TAGLAY v. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO DARAY

PERALTA, J.

It is also true that petitioner's counsel participated in the proceedings held before the RTC without objecting that his client had not yet been arraigned. However, it is wrong for the RTC to rely on the case of People v. Cabale,[25] because the accused therein was in fact arraigned, although the same was made only after the case was submitted for decision. In the similar cases of People v. Atienza and Closa[26] and People v. Pangilinan,[27] the accused in the said cases were also belatedly arraigned. The Court, in these three cases, held that the active participation of the counsels of the accused, as well as their opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses during trial without objecting on the ground that their clients had not yet been arraigned, had the effect of curing the defect in the belated arraignment. Moreover, the accused in these cases did not object when they were belatedly arraigned. The same, however, cannot be said in the instant case. There is no arraignment at all before the RTC. On the other hand, the arraignment conducted by the MCTC is null and void. Thus, there is nothing to be cured. Petitioner's counsel also timely raised before the RTC the fact that her client, herein petitioner, was not arraigned.

GR No. 168103

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA Y TADEO

PERALTA, J.

The claim of appellant that he could not have raped AAA because his wife was still in the country during the alleged period when the rape was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve even the slightest consideration from this Court. It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.[21] There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side.[22] There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[23]

GR No. 168103

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA Y TADEO

PERALTA, J.

For his defense, appellant merely denied having raped AAA. However, denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, constitutes negative self-serving evidence which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[39] In the present case, the records are devoid of any clear and convincing evidence that would substantiate appellant's denial. In the same manner, appellant's claim that the filing of the criminal charges against him was instigated by AAA's aunt because he failed to lend the latter money is uncorroborated by any evidence. Thus, when there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the rape victim to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[40]

GR No. 177740

2010-04-05

PEOPLE v. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [25]

GR No. 167955

2009-09-30

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS

PERALTA, J.

It is settled that to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[53]

GR No. 174484

2009-02-23

PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[29]

GR No. 173052

2008-12-16

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PELAGIO Y BERMUDO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

To determine the innocence or guilt of an accused in a rape case, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[13] As a result of these guiding principles, credibility becomes the single most important issue.[14]

GR No. 171452

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

On the lack of signs of extragenital physical trauma on AAA, the same is easily explained by the fact that AAA was examined only on February 1, 2000, or four months after she was raped on October 15, 1999, by which time whatever traces of force appellant applied on her would have already disappeared.[65]

GR No. 171089

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PASCUAL

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Q. You stated that you were in Grade III when the accused abused you and you said you could recall it was in 1997, is it not a fact that your Grade III lasted from 1997 to 1998 are you aware of that? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. So the rape or abuses on you by the accused happened within 1997 up to 1998, do you agree with that? A. Yes, ma'am.[14] The gravamen of Statutory Rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years old.[15] Proof of force is not an element, as the absence of a free consent is presumed. Conviction will lie provided sexual intercourse is proven.[16]

GR No. 167383

2008-09-22

PEOPLE v. AMADEO TINSAY

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Court is convinced of the veracity of AAA's testimony that appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Even if only a portion of appellant's penis had entered the victim's vagina, it is settled that it is enough that the penis reaches the pudendum, or at the very least, the labia. The mere introduction of the penis into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudendum, already consummates the crime of rape.[22]

GR No. 168102

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[15]

GR No. 177572

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. JUANITO DELA CRUZ Y RIVERA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The supposed contradictions cited by appellant refer to minor details and are evidently beyond the essential fact of the commission of rape because they do not pertain to the actual sexual assault itself that very moment when appellant was forcing himself on AAA. Besides, these minor inconsistencies even bolster the credibility of AAA as one could hardly doubt that her testimony was contrived.[33]

	GR No. 202838 2014-09-17	PEOPLE v. JULITO GERANDOY PEREZ, J.
As repeatedly held by this Court, "Lust is no respecter of time and place." [37] Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.[38] In the case of People v. Alarcon,[39] the accused argued that rape could not have committed when the victim's siblings were by her side was dismissed by the court. Isolation is not a determinative factor to rule on whether a rape was committed or not and there is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[40] It can be committed, discreetly or indiscreetly, even in a room full of family members sleeping side by side. It has been ruled that rape is not rendered impossible simply because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its commission.[41]
	GR No. 199268 2014-02-12	PEOPLE v. AURELIO JASTIVA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Case law, however, shows numerous instances of rape committed under indirect and audacious circumstances.[63] The lust of a lecherous man respects neither time nor place. Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.[64]
	GR No. 164258 2012-08-22	ESTRELLA TAGLAY v. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO DARAY PERALTA, J.
It is also true that petitioner's counsel participated in the proceedings held before the RTC without objecting that his client had not yet been arraigned. However, it is wrong for the RTC to rely on the case of People v. Cabale,[25] because the accused therein was in fact arraigned, although the same was made only after the case was submitted for decision. In the similar cases of People v. Atienza and Closa[26] and People v. Pangilinan,[27] the accused in the said cases were also belatedly arraigned. The Court, in these three cases, held that the active participation of the counsels of the accused, as well as their opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses during trial without objecting on the ground that their clients had not yet been arraigned, had the effect of curing the defect in the belated arraignment. Moreover, the accused in these cases did not object when they were belatedly arraigned. The same, however, cannot be said in the instant case. There is no arraignment at all before the RTC. On the other hand, the arraignment conducted by the MCTC is null and void. Thus, there is nothing to be cured. Petitioner's counsel also timely raised before the RTC the fact that her client, herein petitioner, was not arraigned.
	GR No. 168103 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA Y TADEO PERALTA, J.
The claim of appellant that he could not have raped AAA because his wife was still in the country during the alleged period when the rape was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve even the slightest consideration from this Court. It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.[21] There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side.[22] There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[23]
	GR No. 168103 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA Y TADEO PERALTA, J.
For his defense, appellant merely denied having raped AAA. However, denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, constitutes negative self-serving evidence which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[39] In the present case, the records are devoid of any clear and convincing evidence that would substantiate appellant's denial. In the same manner, appellant's claim that the filing of the criminal charges against him was instigated by AAA's aunt because he failed to lend the latter money is uncorroborated by any evidence. Thus, when there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the rape victim to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[40]
	GR No. 177740 2010-04-05	PEOPLE v. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [25]
	GR No. 167955 2009-09-30	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS PERALTA, J.
It is settled that to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[53]
	GR No. 174484 2009-02-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[29]
	GR No. 173052 2008-12-16	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PELAGIO Y BERMUDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To determine the innocence or guilt of an accused in a rape case, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[13] As a result of these guiding principles, credibility becomes the single most important issue.[14]
	GR No. 171452 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On the lack of signs of extragenital physical trauma on AAA, the same is easily explained by the fact that AAA was examined only on February 1, 2000, or four months after she was raped on October 15, 1999, by which time whatever traces of force appellant applied on her would have already disappeared.[65]
	GR No. 171089 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PASCUAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Q. You stated that you were in Grade III when the accused abused you and you said you could recall it was in 1997, is it not a fact that your Grade III lasted from 1997 to 1998 are you aware of that? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. So the rape or abuses on you by the accused happened within 1997 up to 1998, do you agree with that? A. Yes, ma'am.[14] The gravamen of Statutory Rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years old.[15] Proof of force is not an element, as the absence of a free consent is presumed. Conviction will lie provided sexual intercourse is proven.[16]
	GR No. 167383 2008-09-22	PEOPLE v. AMADEO TINSAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court is convinced of the veracity of AAA's testimony that appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Even if only a portion of appellant's penis had entered the victim's vagina, it is settled that it is enough that the penis reaches the pudendum, or at the very least, the labia. The mere introduction of the penis into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudendum, already consummates the crime of rape.[22]
	GR No. 168102 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[15]
	GR No. 177572 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. JUANITO DELA CRUZ Y RIVERA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The supposed contradictions cited by appellant refer to minor details and are evidently beyond the essential fact of the commission of rape because they do not pertain to the actual sexual assault itself that very moment when appellant was forcing himself on AAA. Besides, these minor inconsistencies even bolster the credibility of AAA as one could hardly doubt that her testimony was contrived.[33]

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD