Lawyerly

GR No. 208749

2014-11-26

REYES, J.

A charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[24] Because conviction may rest solely thereon, the victim's testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,[25] it must be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably, the victim's credibility must be put on trial as well.[26]

GR No. 211049

2014-08-06

PEOPLE v. ROMEO CLOSA Y LUALHATI

REYES, J.

Since a charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[21] because conviction may rest solely thereon, it is required that the victim's testimony be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[22] The testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and unavoidably, her own credibility as well must be put on trial.[23] Equally important is the settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court considering that the trial judge is able to personally observe the demeanor of the victim and other witnesses.[24] Thus, the findings may be disturbed only when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of evidence on record.[25] In People v. Guanson,[26] the Court held that: Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, could weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate the truth against falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstance of significance.[27]

GR No. 207763

2014-06-30

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RONDINA

REYES, J.

Throughout our recorded history, rape has been invariably regarded with unmitigated odium, and meted the highest penalties allowed in our statute books. By its very nature, a charge of rape must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[18] since conviction may be solely based thereon, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[19] For when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. So if her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction may issue on the basis thereof.[20]

GR No. 177137

2012-08-23

PEOPLE v. PEDRO BANIG

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"[I]n resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony."[19] This is so because conviction for rape may be solely based on the victim's testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[20] Both the RTC and the CA agree that "AAA" recounted her ordeal in a candid, straightforward and categorical manner. Thus: [FISCAL ORIAS]: Q: And, what transpired after these two persons placed your two hands at your back? A: When they put my hands at my back they removed my pants and panty, sir. x x x x Q: Who was that person who removed your pants and underwear? A: They were the ones, sir, Pedro Banig and Tony Ginumtad. x x x x Q: After removing your pants and underwear, Madam witness, what did Pedro Banig do to you, if any? A: He insert[ed] his penis, sir. FISCAL ORIAS - Q: Where did he insert his penis? A: [Into my] vagina, sir. Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis [into] your vagina? A: It was painful, sir. Q: Did you not shout? A: No, sir, because they told me that if I x x x shout they [would] kill me, sir. Q: Was Pedro Banig armed at that time? ATTY. PAWINGI: Leading, your honor. [FISCAL ORIAS]:

GR No. 195239

2012-03-07

PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA

VELASCO JR., J.

The sole testimony of a rape victim, if credible, suffices to convict.[28] The complainant's testimony if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things may suffice to support a conviction of rape.[29] This Court finds that the testimony of AAA is straightforward and convincing with no inconsistency with regard to the material elements of the crime of rape.

GR No. 175831

2011-04-12

PEOPLE v. FLORANTE RELANES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Appellant's defense of denial and alibi should be dismissed outright in light of his positive identification by the victim "AAA." It is an established jurisprudential rule that denial and alibi, being negative self-serving defenses, cannot prevail over the affirmative allegations of the victim and her categorical and positive identification of the accused as her assailant.[26] "Denial and alibi must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence otherwise they cannot prevail over the positive testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters."[27] The assertion of appellant that he was in Manila on January 9, 2003 does not inspire belief since it remained uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence that he was really in Manila when the last rape was committed. But what sealed appellant's fate is his plea for forgiveness to his wife, daughter, his parents and members of his family.[28] "Evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong and a plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise."[29] Settled is the rule that in criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be settled through mutual concessions, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.[30] Under the circumstances obtaining, appellant's plea for forgiveness should be received as an implied admission of guilt.

GR No. 172710

2009-10-09

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BUBAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The Court ruled in People v. Nazareno[27] as follows: In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following jurisprudential guidelines: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) 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.

GR No. 185712

2009-08-04

PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS

VELASCO JR., J.

At any event, her having been sexually assaulted by someone else does not foreclose the possibility of Achas having raped her also. As it were, CCC was not present when Achas--to satisfy his lust, at least the second time around--dragged AAA into the adjoining store. In other words, CCC did not, as he could not, testify on the physical impossibility of the crime having being committed by his father. We go back to the oft-cited jurisprudential gem that a young girl will not have the courage and strength to concoct a tale of defloration against a stepfather and relate in public all its horrifying were she not in fact sexually violated. The Court cannot bring its mind to a rest that a girl of tender age--like AAA, who has not been shown to have ill motive to falsely testify against her stepfather--would allow herself to go through the humiliation of a public trial if not to pursue justice for what has happened.[34] As to the testimony of CCC, we have previously held that when the denial of the accused is tended to be established only by himself, his relatives, or friends, his denial of culpability should be accorded the strictest scrutiny; their testimonies are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the testimonies of the more credible witnesses for the prosecution.[35] So it must be here.

GR No. 182549

2009-01-20

PEOPLE v. SERGIO LAGARDE

VELASCO JR., J.

In rape cases, courts are governed by the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme 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. Due to the nature of this crime, only the complainant can testify against the assailant. Accordingly, conviction for rape may be solely based on the complainant's testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[15]

GR No. 171452

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is within the foregoing framework that courts have consistently assigned full weight and credit to the testimony of a child-complainant, for no woman, much less one of tender age, would broadcast a violation of her person, allow an examination of her flesh and endure a public trial of her remaining dignity, unless she is solely impelled by the desire for redress.[83] Thus, when her testimony is plausible, spontaneous, convincing and consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, it can indeed beget moral certainty of the guilt of her violator.[84] And what can overcome the weight of her testimony is inconsistency on the fact of carnal knowledge or any credible physical evidence of the lack of it.[85] But for as long as she remains steadfast in her testimony on the essential element of carnal knowledge, inconsistencies or discrepancies on any other detail will not impair, but rather buttress, the veracity of her testimony, for lapses in her recollection of peripheral details are only to be expected for she is made to relive a harrowing experience.[86] This rule holds especially true when the minor inconsistencies are between her sworn statements and testimony in open court for such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit her since ex-parte affidavits are almost always incomplete and therefore inferior to the testimony given in open court.[87]

GR No. 171089

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PASCUAL

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

This was recently affirmed in People v. Nazareno,[12] ruling that:In the case under review, the information in Criminal Case No. 2638 alleged that the rape of BBB transpired "sometime and between January 1992 up to December 6, 1998 in Barangay Codon, Municipality of San Andres, Province of Catanduanes." In Criminal Case No. 2650, the information averred that "from sometime in January 1990 up to December 1998 in Barangay Codon, Municipality of San Andres, Province of Catanduanes," AAA was raped by appellant. To the mind of the Court, the recitals in the informations sufficiently comply with the constitutional requirement that the accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (Emphasis supplied)

	GR No. 208749 2014-11-26	PEOPLE v. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG REYES, J.
A charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[24] Because conviction may rest solely thereon, the victim's testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,[25] it must be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably, the victim's credibility must be put on trial as well.[26]
	GR No. 211049 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. ROMEO CLOSA Y LUALHATI REYES, J.
Since a charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[21] because conviction may rest solely thereon, it is required that the victim's testimony be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[22] The testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and unavoidably, her own credibility as well must be put on trial.[23] Equally important is the settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court considering that the trial judge is able to personally observe the demeanor of the victim and other witnesses.[24] Thus, the findings may be disturbed only when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of evidence on record.[25] In People v. Guanson,[26] the Court held that: Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, could weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate the truth against falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstance of significance.[27]
	GR No. 207763 2014-06-30	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO RONDINA REYES, J.
Throughout our recorded history, rape has been invariably regarded with unmitigated odium, and meted the highest penalties allowed in our statute books. By its very nature, a charge of rape must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony,[18] since conviction may be solely based thereon, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[19] For when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. So if her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction may issue on the basis thereof.[20]
	GR No. 177137 2012-08-23	PEOPLE v. PEDRO BANIG DEL CASTILLO, J.
"[I]n resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony."[19] This is so because conviction for rape may be solely based on the victim's testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[20] Both the RTC and the CA agree that "AAA" recounted her ordeal in a candid, straightforward and categorical manner. Thus: [FISCAL ORIAS]: Q: And, what transpired after these two persons placed your two hands at your back? A: When they put my hands at my back they removed my pants and panty, sir. x x x x Q: Who was that person who removed your pants and underwear? A: They were the ones, sir, Pedro Banig and Tony Ginumtad. x x x x Q: After removing your pants and underwear, Madam witness, what did Pedro Banig do to you, if any? A: He insert[ed] his penis, sir. FISCAL ORIAS - Q: Where did he insert his penis? A: [Into my] vagina, sir. Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis [into] your vagina? A: It was painful, sir. Q: Did you not shout? A: No, sir, because they told me that if I x x x shout they [would] kill me, sir. Q: Was Pedro Banig armed at that time? ATTY. PAWINGI: Leading, your honor. [FISCAL ORIAS]:
	GR No. 195239 2012-03-07	PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA VELASCO JR., J.
The sole testimony of a rape victim, if credible, suffices to convict.[28] The complainant's testimony if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things may suffice to support a conviction of rape.[29] This Court finds that the testimony of AAA is straightforward and convincing with no inconsistency with regard to the material elements of the crime of rape.
	GR No. 175831 2011-04-12	PEOPLE v. FLORANTE RELANES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's defense of denial and alibi should be dismissed outright in light of his positive identification by the victim "AAA." It is an established jurisprudential rule that denial and alibi, being negative self-serving defenses, cannot prevail over the affirmative allegations of the victim and her categorical and positive identification of the accused as her assailant.[26] "Denial and alibi must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence otherwise they cannot prevail over the positive testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters."[27] The assertion of appellant that he was in Manila on January 9, 2003 does not inspire belief since it remained uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence that he was really in Manila when the last rape was committed. But what sealed appellant's fate is his plea for forgiveness to his wife, daughter, his parents and members of his family.[28] "Evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong and a plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise."[29] Settled is the rule that in criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be settled through mutual concessions, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.[30] Under the circumstances obtaining, appellant's plea for forgiveness should be received as an implied admission of guilt.
	GR No. 172710 2009-10-09	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BUBAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court ruled in People v. Nazareno[27] as follows: In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following jurisprudential guidelines: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) 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.
	GR No. 185712 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS VELASCO JR., J.
At any event, her having been sexually assaulted by someone else does not foreclose the possibility of Achas having raped her also. As it were, CCC was not present when Achas--to satisfy his lust, at least the second time around--dragged AAA into the adjoining store. In other words, CCC did not, as he could not, testify on the physical impossibility of the crime having being committed by his father. We go back to the oft-cited jurisprudential gem that a young girl will not have the courage and strength to concoct a tale of defloration against a stepfather and relate in public all its horrifying were she not in fact sexually violated. The Court cannot bring its mind to a rest that a girl of tender age--like AAA, who has not been shown to have ill motive to falsely testify against her stepfather--would allow herself to go through the humiliation of a public trial if not to pursue justice for what has happened.[34] As to the testimony of CCC, we have previously held that when the denial of the accused is tended to be established only by himself, his relatives, or friends, his denial of culpability should be accorded the strictest scrutiny; their testimonies are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the testimonies of the more credible witnesses for the prosecution.[35] So it must be here.
	GR No. 182549 2009-01-20	PEOPLE v. SERGIO LAGARDE VELASCO JR., J.
In rape cases, courts are governed by the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme 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. Due to the nature of this crime, only the complainant can testify against the assailant. Accordingly, conviction for rape may be solely based on the complainant's testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[15]
	GR No. 171452 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is within the foregoing framework that courts have consistently assigned full weight and credit to the testimony of a child-complainant, for no woman, much less one of tender age, would broadcast a violation of her person, allow an examination of her flesh and endure a public trial of her remaining dignity, unless she is solely impelled by the desire for redress.[83] Thus, when her testimony is plausible, spontaneous, convincing and consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, it can indeed beget moral certainty of the guilt of her violator.[84] And what can overcome the weight of her testimony is inconsistency on the fact of carnal knowledge or any credible physical evidence of the lack of it.[85] But for as long as she remains steadfast in her testimony on the essential element of carnal knowledge, inconsistencies or discrepancies on any other detail will not impair, but rather buttress, the veracity of her testimony, for lapses in her recollection of peripheral details are only to be expected for she is made to relive a harrowing experience.[86] This rule holds especially true when the minor inconsistencies are between her sworn statements and testimony in open court for such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit her since ex-parte affidavits are almost always incomplete and therefore inferior to the testimony given in open court.[87]
	GR No. 171089 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO PASCUAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This was recently affirmed in People v. Nazareno,[12] ruling that:In the case under review, the information in Criminal Case No. 2638 alleged that the rape of BBB transpired "sometime and between January 1992 up to December 6, 1998 in Barangay Codon, Municipality of San Andres, Province of Catanduanes." In Criminal Case No. 2650, the information averred that "from sometime in January 1990 up to December 1998 in Barangay Codon, Municipality of San Andres, Province of Catanduanes," AAA was raped by appellant. To the mind of the Court, the recitals in the informations sufficiently comply with the constitutional requirement that the accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (Emphasis supplied)

PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO