Lawyerly

GR No. 182690

2011-05-30

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in disregarding Ogarte's defenses. This Court has uniformly held, time and again, that both "denial and alibi are among the weakest, if not the weakest, defenses in criminal prosecution."[69] It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.[70]

GR No. 181255

2009-10-16

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO PILI

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

resistance was offered by the victim to prevent accused-appellant from inserting his penis inside her vagina, lacks merit. The fact that AAA did not shout or make an outcry when her relatives were nearby does not mean that she was not raped by accused-appellant. Failure of the victim in rape cases to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make the sexual intercourse voluntary. The workings of a human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently. In such a situation, some may shout; others may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility; while others may welcome the intrusion. Verily, the law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance where force or threats and intimidation were used on her. Resistance of the victim is not an element of the crime. The fact that AAA did not exert tenacious resistance did not mean that her submission to the lustful desire of accused-appellant is voluntary. In rape cases, it is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death.[33] The prosecution has established beyond doubt that accused-appellant made threats on the life of AAA, as well as on the lives of her two nieces. This threat alone is sufficient for AAA to revoltingly submit to the bestial act of the accused. It bears to emphasize that accused-appellant covered her mouth when she fought him off and shouted. It was then that he threatened to kill her and her nieces should she again shout. His threat to kill them intimidated her. At this juncture, AAA could only cry helplessly when accused-appellant ravished her against her will. Accused-appellant contends that after the alleged rape, AAA did not report immediately to her mother, and that it took her six (6) days to report the incident to the police authorities. Delay in reporting the crime is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not

GR No. 181255

2009-10-16

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO PILI

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

indemnity ex delicto is mandatory in the amount of P50,000.00. Award of moral damages is also in order. Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted in addition without need of further proof inasmuch as it is assumed that a victim of rape has actually suffered moral injuries that entitles her to such an award.[44] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01260 dated 13 August 2007 finding herein accused-appellant ERNESTO PILI guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended

GR No. 184791

2009-04-16

PEOPLE v. PEDRO NOGPO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The trial court also ordered accused-appellant to indemnify private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay her moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. This is in line with prevailing jurisprudence that civil indemnification is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[29] On the other hand, moral damages in rape cases are awarded without need of showing that the private complainant experienced trauma or mental, physical and psychological suffering.[30]

GR No. 182791

2009-02-10

PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being the subject of a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[33] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[34] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[35]

GR No. 182924

2008-12-24

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[36] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[37] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[38]

GR No. 168650

2007-10-26

PEOPLE v. JOSE TUAZON

NACHURA, J.

As to the civil liability of appellant, we modify the same. The RTC awarded P50,000.00 as damages and P75,000.00 as civil damages. This Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 for each count of rape as moral damages instead of "damages," and reduces the amount of P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each count as civil indemnity instead of "civil damages." This is pursuant to the prevailing doctrine enunciated in the cases of People v. Bascugin,[43] People v. Tolentino,[44] People v. Espinosa,[45] and People v. Rote.[46] Furthermore, as held in People v. Malones,[47] this is not the first time that a child has been snatched from the cradle of innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual appetite. To curb this disturbing trend, appellant should, likewise, be made to pay exemplary damages which is pegged at P25,000.00 for each count of rape.

GR No. 175324

2007-10-10

PEOPLE v. EDISON MIRA

TINGA, J,

In incestuous rape, it is essential that the relationship and minority be conjointly alleged in the information and duly proved.[37] The Information states that "accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his 11-year old daughter AAA, against her will and without her consent."[38] The filial relationship between appellant and AAA was sufficiently alleged in the Information and established by the testimonies of AAA[39] and BBB.[40] However, during trial, the prosecution failed to submit any written evidence to prove the age of the victim. No birth certificate, baptismal record, or testimony relating to the age of AAA was presented. Even if the complainant's minority and filiation to the appellant were never refuted nor contested by the defense, proof thereof is critical, considering the penalty of death imposed for qualified rape.[41]

GR NO. 171020

2007-03-14

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[28] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[29] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[30] A rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families and it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her, if such were not true.[31] Her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial.[32]

GR NO. 147913

2007-01-31

CLEMENT JOHN FERDINAND M. NAVARRETE v. PEOPLE

In the face of the serious accusation against him, petitioner could only interpose denial as defense. Denial is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification provided by the complainant. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.[48] As between the positive declaration of the prosecution witness and the negative statement of the accused, the former deserves more credence.[49] The lower courts also correctly disbelieved the corroborating testimonies of petitioner's aunt and sister.[50]

GR NO. 168649

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We find this hard to believe. Motives such as feuds, resentment and revenge have never swayed us from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor complainant.[36] This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[37] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[38] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[39] Full weight and credit should, indeed, be accorded AAA's testimony. It is very unlikely for her to accuse her father of so heinous a crime if it were not true. Her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial.[40]

GR NO. 166546

2006-09-26

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This claim was never substantiated. Even assuming arguendo that the victim resented appellant for having allegedly scolded her, such a reason is too flimsy to be believed by this Court. This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[32] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[33] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[34] Indeed, AAA's testimony deserves full weight and credit. Having just entered her teen years, it is very unlikely for her to accuse her stepfather - the person who treated her as his own child, gave her his name, and sent her to school - of so heinous a crime if it were not true.

	GR No. 182690 2011-05-30	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO OGARTE Y OCOB LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in disregarding Ogarte's defenses. This Court has uniformly held, time and again, that both "denial and alibi are among the weakest, if not the weakest, defenses in criminal prosecution."[69] It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.[70]
	GR No. 181255 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO PILI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
resistance was offered by the victim to prevent accused-appellant from inserting his penis inside her vagina, lacks merit. The fact that AAA did not shout or make an outcry when her relatives were nearby does not mean that she was not raped by accused-appellant. Failure of the victim in rape cases to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make the sexual intercourse voluntary. The workings of a human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently. In such a situation, some may shout; others may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility; while others may welcome the intrusion. Verily, the law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance where force or threats and intimidation were used on her. Resistance of the victim is not an element of the crime. The fact that AAA did not exert tenacious resistance did not mean that her submission to the lustful desire of accused-appellant is voluntary. In rape cases, it is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death.[33] The prosecution has established beyond doubt that accused-appellant made threats on the life of AAA, as well as on the lives of her two nieces. This threat alone is sufficient for AAA to revoltingly submit to the bestial act of the accused. It bears to emphasize that accused-appellant covered her mouth when she fought him off and shouted. It was then that he threatened to kill her and her nieces should she again shout. His threat to kill them intimidated her. At this juncture, AAA could only cry helplessly when accused-appellant ravished her against her will. Accused-appellant contends that after the alleged rape, AAA did not report immediately to her mother, and that it took her six (6) days to report the incident to the police authorities. Delay in reporting the crime is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not
	GR No. 181255 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO PILI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
indemnity ex delicto is mandatory in the amount of P50,000.00. Award of moral damages is also in order. Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted in addition without need of further proof inasmuch as it is assumed that a victim of rape has actually suffered moral injuries that entitles her to such an award.[44] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01260 dated 13 August 2007 finding herein accused-appellant ERNESTO PILI guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
	GR No. 184791 2009-04-16	PEOPLE v. PEDRO NOGPO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The trial court also ordered accused-appellant to indemnify private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay her moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. This is in line with prevailing jurisprudence that civil indemnification is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[29] On the other hand, moral damages in rape cases are awarded without need of showing that the private complainant experienced trauma or mental, physical and psychological suffering.[30]
	GR No. 182791 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being the subject of a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[33] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[34] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[35]
	GR No. 182924 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEREZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[36] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[37] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[38]
	GR No. 168650 2007-10-26	PEOPLE v. JOSE TUAZON NACHURA, J.
As to the civil liability of appellant, we modify the same. The RTC awarded P50,000.00 as damages and P75,000.00 as civil damages. This Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 for each count of rape as moral damages instead of "damages," and reduces the amount of P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each count as civil indemnity instead of "civil damages." This is pursuant to the prevailing doctrine enunciated in the cases of People v. Bascugin,[43] People v. Tolentino,[44] People v. Espinosa,[45] and People v. Rote.[46] Furthermore, as held in People v. Malones,[47] this is not the first time that a child has been snatched from the cradle of innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual appetite. To curb this disturbing trend, appellant should, likewise, be made to pay exemplary damages which is pegged at P25,000.00 for each count of rape.
	GR No. 175324 2007-10-10	PEOPLE v. EDISON MIRA TINGA, J,
In incestuous rape, it is essential that the relationship and minority be conjointly alleged in the information and duly proved.[37] The Information states that "accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his 11-year old daughter AAA, against her will and without her consent."[38] The filial relationship between appellant and AAA was sufficiently alleged in the Information and established by the testimonies of AAA[39] and BBB.[40] However, during trial, the prosecution failed to submit any written evidence to prove the age of the victim. No birth certificate, baptismal record, or testimony relating to the age of AAA was presented. Even if the complainant's minority and filiation to the appellant were never refuted nor contested by the defense, proof thereof is critical, considering the penalty of death imposed for qualified rape.[41]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[28] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[29] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[30] A rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families and it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her, if such were not true.[31] Her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial.[32]
	GR NO. 147913 2007-01-31	CLEMENT JOHN FERDINAND M. NAVARRETE v. PEOPLE
In the face of the serious accusation against him, petitioner could only interpose denial as defense. Denial is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification provided by the complainant. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.[48] As between the positive declaration of the prosecution witness and the negative statement of the accused, the former deserves more credence.[49] The lower courts also correctly disbelieved the corroborating testimonies of petitioner's aunt and sister.[50]
	GR NO. 168649 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We find this hard to believe. Motives such as feuds, resentment and revenge have never swayed us from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor complainant.[36] This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[37] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[38] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[39] Full weight and credit should, indeed, be accorded AAA's testimony. It is very unlikely for her to accuse her father of so heinous a crime if it were not true. Her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial.[40]
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This claim was never substantiated. Even assuming arguendo that the victim resented appellant for having allegedly scolded her, such a reason is too flimsy to be believed by this Court. This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[32] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[33] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[34] Indeed, AAA's testimony deserves full weight and credit. Having just entered her teen years, it is very unlikely for her to accuse her stepfather - the person who treated her as his own child, gave her his name, and sent her to school - of so heinous a crime if it were not true.

PEOPLE v. CHARLIE ESPINOSA