Lawyerly

GR No. 190633

2010-07-05

VELASCO JR., J.

Complementing the foregoing principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape;[10] that in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the findings of the trial court.[11]

GR No. 190616

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. PASTOR LLANAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy involving only two persons and not generally attempted save in secluded places far from prying eyes. By the intrinsic nature of rape cases, the crime usually commences solely upon the word of the offended girl herself and conviction invariably turns upon her credibility, as the People's single witness of the actual occurrence. [12] Accordingly, certain guiding principles have been formulated in resolving rape cases. Foremost of these: an offended woman's testimony hurdling the exacting test of credibility would suffice to convict.[13] In fine, the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape.[14] Withal, in passing upon the credibility of the victim-witness, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the evaluation and findings of the trial court.[15]

GR No. 177740

2010-04-05

PEOPLE v. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. [28] Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility. [29] Here, we note that no such facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial and appellate courts.

GR No. 167955

2009-09-30

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS

PERALTA, J.

Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[56] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[57] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case.

GR No. 185203

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO ARAOJO

VELASCO JR., J.

Corollary to the foregoing principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape.[13] Withal, in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be accorded to the findings of the trial court.[14]

GR No. 185712

2009-08-04

PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Complementing the foregoing principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape;[16] that in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the findings of the trial court.[17]

GR No. 175238

2009-02-24

PEOPLE v. ELMER BALDO Y SANTAIN

QUISUMBING, J.

[19] People v. Balonzo, G.R. No. 176153, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 760, 771; People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 172373, September 25, 2007, 534 SCRA 140, 145.

GR No. 177752

2009-02-24

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO ABAY Y TRINIDAD

CORONA, J.

Indeed, the records are replete with evidence establishing that appellant forced AAA to engage in sexual intercourse with him on December 25, 1999. Appellant is therefore found guilty of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, to conform with existing jurisprudence, he is ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity ex-delicto[24] and P75,000 as moral damages.[25]

GR No. 174484

2009-02-23

PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[32] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[33] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case.

GR No. 168102

2008-08-22

PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[18] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[19] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case.

GR No. 178540

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Although the employees of Canscor Construction and Development Corporation were taken by surprise when the robbery took place, they were able to get a good look at the robbers who went inside the office. The most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to see the looks and faces of the malefactors and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[8] Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victims' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[9] In fact, experience dictates that precisely because of the startling acts of violence committed in their presence, eyewitnesses can recall with a high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals and how at any given time, the crime has been committed by them. [10] Witnesses need not know the names of the malefactors as long as they recognize their faces. [11] What is imperative is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical identification from the witnesses' own personal knowledge, as is obtaining in this case.[12]

GR No. 175275

2008-02-19

EMILIO CAMPOS v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

In determining 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.[8] The credibility of the complainant is, therefore, of vital importance, for in view of the peculiar nature of rape, conviction or acquittal of the accused depends almost entirely upon the word of the private complainant.[9]

	GR No. 190633 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. BASILIO CADAP VELASCO JR., J.
Complementing the foregoing principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape;[10] that in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the findings of the trial court.[11]
	GR No. 190616 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. PASTOR LLANAS VELASCO JR., J.
Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy involving only two persons and not generally attempted save in secluded places far from prying eyes. By the intrinsic nature of rape cases, the crime usually commences solely upon the word of the offended girl herself and conviction invariably turns upon her credibility, as the People's single witness of the actual occurrence. [12] Accordingly, certain guiding principles have been formulated in resolving rape cases. Foremost of these: an offended woman's testimony hurdling the exacting test of credibility would suffice to convict.[13] In fine, the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape.[14] Withal, in passing upon the credibility of the victim-witness, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the evaluation and findings of the trial court.[15]
	GR No. 177740 2010-04-05	PEOPLE v. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. [28] Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility. [29] Here, we note that no such facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial and appellate courts.
	GR No. 167955 2009-09-30	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS PERALTA, J.
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[56] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[57] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case.
	GR No. 185203 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO ARAOJO VELASCO JR., J.
Corollary to the foregoing principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape.[13] Withal, in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be accorded to the findings of the trial court.[14]
	GR No. 185712 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS VELASCO JR., J.
Complementing the foregoing principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape;[16] that in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the findings of the trial court.[17]
	GR No. 175238 2009-02-24	PEOPLE v. ELMER BALDO Y SANTAIN QUISUMBING, J.
[19] People v. Balonzo, G.R. No. 176153, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 760, 771; People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 172373, September 25, 2007, 534 SCRA 140, 145.
	GR No. 177752 2009-02-24	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO ABAY Y TRINIDAD CORONA, J.
Indeed, the records are replete with evidence establishing that appellant forced AAA to engage in sexual intercourse with him on December 25, 1999. Appellant is therefore found guilty of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, to conform with existing jurisprudence, he is ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity ex-delicto[24] and P75,000 as moral damages.[25]
	GR No. 174484 2009-02-23	PEOPLE v. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[32] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[33] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case.
	GR No. 168102 2008-08-22	PEOPLE v. JAYSON TUAZON Y OLIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[18] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[19] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case.
	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Although the employees of Canscor Construction and Development Corporation were taken by surprise when the robbery took place, they were able to get a good look at the robbers who went inside the office. The most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to see the looks and faces of the malefactors and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[8] Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victims' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[9] In fact, experience dictates that precisely because of the startling acts of violence committed in their presence, eyewitnesses can recall with a high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals and how at any given time, the crime has been committed by them. [10] Witnesses need not know the names of the malefactors as long as they recognize their faces. [11] What is imperative is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical identification from the witnesses' own personal knowledge, as is obtaining in this case.[12]
	GR No. 175275 2008-02-19	EMILIO CAMPOS v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In determining 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.[8] The credibility of the complainant is, therefore, of vital importance, for in view of the peculiar nature of rape, conviction or acquittal of the accused depends almost entirely upon the word of the private complainant.[9]

PEOPLE v. OLIGARIO BALONZO